i 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/boycottslaborstrOOIaidrich 


BOYCOTTS 

And  the  Labor  Struggle 


BOYCOTTS 

And  the  Labor  Struggle 

ECONOMIC  AND  LEGAL  ASPECTS 


BY 

HARRY  W.  LAIDLER 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION  BY 


HENRY  R.  SEAGER,  Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY, 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY. 


J       1      J    .3 


NEW  YORK— JOHN  LANE  COMPANY 
LONDON— JOHN  LANE— THE  BODLEY  HEAD 
TORONTO  — BELL  &  COCKBURN  —  MCMXIV 


Copyright,  19T3,  by  v         0-* 

JOHN  LANE  COMPANY  ^  ^ 


WIAIK  LIBRARY 


Prctt  of  J.  J.  Little  &  Ires  C». 
New  York,  U.  S.  A. 


TO 

MY  FATHER 


AUTHOR'S    PREFACE 

The  boycott  has  been  used  repeatedly  by  widely 
scattered  groups  in  the  community,  for  many  centuries 
past.  The  boycott  in  labor  disputes  is  of  compara- 
tively recent  origin.  The  word  itself  is  but  a  little 
over  a  generation  old.  Yet  the  employment  of  this 
weapon  has  been  evidenced  in  some  of  the  most  spec- 
tacular labor  wars  in  the  history  of  this  country,  and, 
if  present  indications  do  not  fail,  its  future  role  is 
destined  to  be  a  potent  one. 

Labor  on  the  economic  field  has  thus  far  used  effec- 
tively two  main  weapons,  in  addition  to  that  ultra- 
modern and  mysterious  instrument  of  warfare,  sabot- 
age. The  first  is  the  strike,  with  its  universal  con- 
comitant, picketing;  the  second,  the  boycott.  The 
strike  aims  to  gain  better  conditions  for  labor  by  de- 
priving the  "unfair"  employer  of  the  labor  power 
necessary  to  produce  goods;  the  boycott,  on  the  other 
hand,  seeks  these  same  ends  by  depriving  the  employer- 
of  the  market  for  those  goods  which  labor  has  created. 

The  word  ''boycott"  originated  in  Ireland  in  the 
year  1880,  during  the  bitter  warfare  between  the  Irish 
Land  League  and  the  English  landed  gentry.  Its  in- 
troduction into  the  United  States  occurred  a  few  years 
later,  when  the  Knights  of  Labor  were  in  the  ascend- 
ancy and  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was  just 
beginning  its  activity. 

The  boycott  leapt  into  prominence  again  at  the  time 
of  the  famous  railroad  strikes  of  the  nineties,  led  by 
Eugene  V.  Debs  and  others,  and,  more  lately,  during 


8  ^'^^^      .  V  t  tAU^HOR'S    PREFACE 

'^'tSie 'widely*' hei^ltfed •controversies  popularly  known  as 
the  Buck's  Stove  and  Danbury  Hatters'  Cases. 

Every  session  of  Congress  in  recent  years  has  wit- 
nessed the  introduction  of  bills  to  legalize  the  use  of 
this  weapon.  In  19 12  a  measure  to  prevent  the  em- 
ployment of  Injunctions  against  secondary  boycotts 
passed  the  House  of  Representatives  by  the  over- 
whelming vote  of  244  to  31.  Such  endeavors  will 
probably  be  redoubled  In  the  coming  session,  and  a 
concerted  effort  will  be  made  to  give  to  labor  the  ad- 
vantage which  it  has  so  long  claimed  as  its  right.  The 
recent  judicial  decisions  in  such  states  as  Montana,  New 
York,  California,  Oklahoma,  the  recent  conspiracy 
statutes  of  Maryland  and  California  and  the  lessons 
from  English  history,  all  lead  to  the  belief  that  labor 
is  destined  to  obtain  the  legal  right  to  use  this  de- 
vice. 

To  what  extent  is  the  employment  of  the  boycott 
legal  at  present,  and  how  can  the  present  status  of  the 
law  be  legally  justified?  Is  labor  in  need  of  the  pos- 
session of  the  boycott?  Has  its  past  use  been  beneficial 
to  society,  and  to  what  extent  and  how  wisely  will  It 
be  employed.  If  legalized?  Will  labor,  if  permanently 
deprived  of  the  boycott,  resort  to  weapons  more  or 
less  dangerous  to  the  social  well-being?  These  and 
countless  other  questions  should  be  answered  by  the 
legislator  before  he  commits  himself  on  this  important 
question. 

These  are  among  the  questions  which  the  author 
has  endeavored  to  answer  in  the  following  pages.  It 
has  been  the  aim  of  the  book  to  describe  the  exact  part 
which  the  boycott  has  played  In  the  American  Labor 
movement;  to  differentiate  the  various  forms  of  the 
boycott;  to  analyze  the  causes  leading  to  the  success 
or  failure  of  its  employment;  to  give  a  clear  idea  of 
the  present  status  of  the  common  law  and  statute  law 
in  the  states  and  in  the  federal  government;  to  sum- 


AUTHOR'S    PREFACE  9 

marlze  the  legal  reasoning  for  outlawing  this  weapon; 
and  to  test  the  validity  of  this  reasoning  in  the  light 
of  the  more  recent  legal  tendencies. 

Finally,  the  social  and  economic  reasons  for  and 
against  boycotting  have  been  here  considered.  The 
social  utility  of  an  economic  activity  cannot  be  de- 
termined by  abstracting  that  activity  from  its  economic 
environment,  but  only  by  observing  its  use  in  its  rela- 
tions to  the  various  other  activities  and  influences  which 
call  it  into  play.  Therefore,  it  seems  necessary  to  pre- 
sent, in  a  measure,  a  cross-section  of  the  labor  struggle, 
portraying  not  only  the  workings  of  the  boycott,  but 
those  of  the  various  weapons  which  the  employing  class 
Is  constantly  using  against  the  workers  in  their  fight 
for  a  higher  standard  of  life. 

In  closing,  I  wish  to  express  my  deep  appreciation 
for  the  assistance  of  the  Faculty  of  Political  Economy 
of  Columbia  University;  particularly  for  the  many 
valuable  suggestions  given  by  Professor  Henry  R.  Sea- 
ger.  I  am  also  indebted  to  Dr.  Jessie  Wallace 
Hughan  and  Miss  Mary  R.  Sanford,  for  their  careful 
reading  of  the  monograph  before  its  pubUcation. 

Harry  W.  Laidler. 

New  York,  December,  19 13. 


CONTENTS 

Introduction       ....     By  Prof.  Henry  R.  Seager    17 

PART  I 
ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  BOYCOTTS 

CHAPTER  I 

HISTORY  OF   THE  BOYCOTT 

PAGE 

Captain  Boycott  and  the  Irish  League       ....      23 

Boycotting  in  Past  History 27 

The  Boycott  and  the  American  Revolution    ...      28 

CHAPTER  II 

some  modern  forms  of  boycotts  in  the  united  states 

The  Consumers'  Boycott 31 

The  Employers'  Boycott 35 

The  Blacklist 39 

The  Trade  Boycott *  49 

The  Political  Boycott 51 

The  International  Boycott S3 

Other  Forms  of  Boycotts 54 

CHAPTER  III 

the  nature  of  boycotts  employed  by  labor 

Reasons  for  the  Boycott 5^ 

Definitions ^ 

The  Union  Label ^° 

The  Positive  Boycott ^3 

II 


12  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  IV 

EARLY  BOYCOTTS  IN  LABOR  DISPUTES 

PAGE 

Hatters'  and  Printers'  Boycotts 69 

Periods  of  Boycotting 70 

Boycotting  in  the  Eighties 72 

Illinois  and  Wisconsin  Boycotts 77 

CHAPTER  V 

boycotts  in  new  YORK  STATE 

Survey  of  Boycotts,  1885-1892 82 

Success  and  Frequency  of  Boycotts 85 

Boycotts  by  Industries  and  Trades 87 

Boycotts  and  Strikes — A  Comparison 90 

Durations  of  Boycotts 92 

Causes  of  Boycotts 93 

Summary 95 

CHAPTER  VT  / 

railroad  boycotts  in  the  nineties 

The  Ann  Arbor  Strike 98 

The  Pullman  Strike 100 

CHAPTER  VII 

the  AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR  AND  THE  BOYCOTT 

A.  F.  OF  L.  Conventions 109 

The  "We  Don't  Patronize"  List 115 

International  Unions  and  the  Boycott      ....  125 

The  I.  W.  W.  and  the  Boycott 129 

Summary 131 

CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Case 134 


CONTENTS  J3 

CHAPTER  IX 

DANBURY  hatters'  AND  OTHER  CASES 

Danbury  Hatters'  Case 

The  BuTTERiCK  Boycott ,-5 

The  Building  Trades' Boycotts n-^ 

The  Miners' Boycotts j^g 

CHAPTER  X 

Elements  of  Success  in  Boycotts      ......     i6o 

PART  II 
LEGAL  ASPECTS  OF  BOYCOTTS 

CHAPTER  XI 

some  boycott  laws  and  decisions 

Legality  of  Negative  Boycotts 169 

The  I.  C.  L.  and  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Laws      .     .     .  170 

State  Legislation  and  the  Boycott 174 

Primary  Boycotts  and  the  Courts    .     .     .     .     .     .  177 

CHAPTER  XII 

Judicial  reasons  for  illegality  of  boycotts 

Summary  of  Reasons 180 

The  Law  of  Combination 181 

The  Boycott  and  Illegal  Ends 184 

The  Boycott  and  the  Doctrine  of  Malice       .     .     .  189 

The  Boycott  and  Illegal  Means 194 

Freedom  of  Speech  and  Press 198 

CHAPTER  XIII 

JUDICIAL  ARGUMENT  FOR  LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT 

Summary  of  Reasons 200 

Doctrine  of  Combination 201 


14  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Injury  of  Business 209 

Doctrine  of  Immediate  and  Ultimate  Results      .     .  212 

Doctrine  of  Malice 213 

Doctrine  of  Interest 225 

Doctrine  of  Free  Speech  and  Press 227 

Doctrine  of  Threats  and  Coercion 230 

CHAPTER  XIV 

attitude  of  courts  toward  boycotting  and 
remedies  applied 

Attitude  of  Courts  Toward  Boycotting     ....     234^ 
Legal  Remedies 239 

CHAPTER  XV 

status  of  boycotts  abroad 

The  English  Law  of  Conspiracy 241 

Germany 251 

Other  Countries 253 

CHAPTER  XVI 

efforts  to  legalize  boycotts  and  tendencies 

TOWARD  legalization 

Attempts  in  Congress 255 

Tendencies 262 

PART  III 

BOYCOTTS  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIAL  AND 
ECONOMIC  CONDITIONS 

CHAPTER  XVII 
Social  and  Economic  Reasons  Against  the  Boycott  .     267 

CHAPTER  XVIII 
social  and  economic  reasons  for  legalizing  the  boycott 
Summary  of  Reasons 274 


CONTENTS  15 

Present  Condition  of  Labor 271; 

The  Wealth  and  Position  of  the  Employing  Class    .  270 

Employers'  Organizations 281 

The  Blacklist 280 

"Spies"  in  Labor  Unions 200 

Private  Detectives 207 

Private  Detectives  Armed  with  State  Authority     .  302 

Organizations  for  Supplying  Strike  Breakers     .     .  304 


CHAPTER  XIX 

social  and  economic  reasons  for  legalizing  the  boycott 
public  opinion  and  the  government 

The  Control  of  the  Press 307 

Free  Speech 315 

The  Pulpit 317 

Governmental  Forces  and  the  Worker — The  Police  318 

The  State  Constabulary 320 

The  Militia 322 

The  Courts 325 

Boycotting  a  Fundamental  Right 328 


CHAPTER    XX 

possible  recourse  of  labor  if  permanently  deprr^ed 
of  the  boycott 

Secret  Practice •     .     •  331 

The  Union  Label  and  Trade  Union  Cooperatives     .  332 

Political  Action 334 

Sabotage  and  the  I.  W.  W.  Tactics 34o 


CHAPTER  XXI 
Probable  Outcome  if  the  Boycott  is  Legalized    .     .    344 


i6  CONTENTS 

APPENDIX 

SUMMARY  AND  DIGEST  OF  DECISIONS  IN  BOYCOTT  AND 
ALLIED  CASES 


PAGE 


New  England  States 356 

Middle  Atlantic  States 365 

North  Central  States 386 

Southern  States 406 

Western  States 419 

Federal  Decisions 430 

Buck's  Stove  and  Danbury  Hatters     ....  450 

Table  of  Cases 456 

Bibliography 473 

Index 481 


INTRODUCTION 

To  most  Americans  "boycott"  is  a  word  of  ill-omen. 
The  pictures  it  calls  up  are  of  acts  like  those  charged 
against  the  striking  coal  miners  in  the  Report  of  the 
Anthracite  Strike  Commission  of  1902.  It  says:  "A 
young  school  mistress  of  Intelligence,  character,  and  at- 
tainments was  .  .  .  boycotted,  and  her  dismissal  from 
employment  compelled  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
a  brother,  not  living  In  her  immediate  family,  chose  to 
work  contrary  to  the  wishes  and  will  of  the  striking 
miners.  A  lad,  about  fifteen  years  old,  employed  in 
a  drug  store,  was  discharged,  owing  to  the  threats 
made  to  his  employer  by  a  delegation  of  the  strikers, 
on  behalf  of  their  organization,  for  the  reason  that 
his  father  had  chosen  to  return  to  work  before  the 
strike  was  ended.  In  several  instances  tradesmen  were 
threatened  with  a  boycott — that  is,  that  all  connected 
with  the  strikers  would  withhold  from  them  their  cus- 
tom, and  persuade  others  to  do  so,  if  they  continued 
to  furnish  the  necessaries  of  life  to  the  families  of  cer- 
tain workmen,  who  had  come  under  the  ban  of  the 
displeasure  of  the  striking  organization." 

Such  insistence  on  the  solidarity  of  the  family  and 
punishment  of  sisters,  sons  and  even  wives  and  infant 
children  for  the  offenses  of  their  brothers,  fathers,  and 
husbands  seems  unjust.  It  is  the  purpose  of  the  law 
to  prevent  Injustice.  Consequently  laws  against  the  use 
of  the  boycott,  whether  common  or  statute,  are  good 
laws  and  should  be  enforced.  This  is  the  line  of  rea- 
soning that  has  heretofore  dominated  pubhc  opinr 
ion  in  the  United  States. 

But  the  issue  Is  not  quite  so  simple.    To  prevent  in- 

17 


1 8\^  ^.>      .  \/  ?  jVlNTRODUCTION 

*^ticje.'^iV4he;pui>j>b'8e  (>f  the  law;  but  in  an  imperfect 
world  it  must  content  itself  with  a  very  imperfect  ac- 
complishment of  that  purpose.  If  in  the  endeavor 
to  remedy  one  kind  of  injustice  another  kind  that  is 
more  serious  is  committed,  the  cure  is  clearly  worse 
than  the  disease.  And  this  is  the  view  which  intelligent 
wage-earners  take  of  the  law  restricting  their  right  to 
use  the  boycott.  In  their  struggle  to  improve  their 
condition  their  two  most  powerful  weapons  are  their 
right  to  refuse  to  work  for  employers  whose  policies 
they  disapprove,  and  their  right  to  refuse  to  buy  com- 
modities of  dealers  whose  policies  they  disapprove. 
Through  the  gradual  development  of  Anglo-American 
law  the  first  right  has  come  to  be  more  and  more 
completely  recognized.  Strikes,  concerted  refusal  to 
work  for  employers  whose  policies  are  disapproved, 
which  were  condemned  as  criminal  conspiracies  in  the 
first  quarter  of  the  last  century,  are  now  universally 
upheld  as  lawful  when  their  purpose  is  direct  benefit 
to  the  strikers.  Strikes  to  secure  the  discharge  of  non- 
members  of  a  union  and  sympathetic  strikes  are  still 
condemned  in  some  jurisdictions,  but  more  and  more 
the  English  view,  expressed  by  Judge  Parker  in  voicing 
the  majority  opinion  of  the  New  York  Court  of  Ap- 
peals in  an  important  labor  case,^  that  strikes  for  any 
purpose  are  lawful,  so  long  as  unlawful  means  are  not 
employed,  is  winning  acceptance.  This  view  is  not 
founded  on  the  belief  that  strikes  do  not  often  inflict 
cruel  injustice  on  individuals.  The  contrary  is  notori- 
ously the  case.  It  grows  rather  out  of  the  principle 
that,  in  a  free  country,  the  wage-earner  must  be  free 
to  work,  or  not  to  work,  for  whom  he  will,  and  that 
curtailing  this  freedom  and  depriving  him  of  his  lib- 
erty involve,  on  the  whole,  more  injustice  than  giving 
it  the  widest  scope  and  trusting  to  his  sense  of  fair- 

'  National   Protective  Association  v.    Cummings,    170   N.   Y.   315 
(1902). 


INTRODUCTION  19 

ness,  to  the  controlling  influence  of  public  opinion  and 
to  the  ability  of  employers  to  combine  on  their  side 
to  resist  unreasonable  demands  and  to  curb  the  unjust 
acts  to  which  it  may  lead. 

The  right  of  workers  to  refuse  to  buy  commodities 
of  dealers  whose  policies  they  disapprove  has  not  yet 
been  given  the  same  wide  extension.  In  its  simple 
form,  the  boycott  of  a  dealer  who  is  himself  obnoxious 
to  his  customers,  it  is  generally  upheld.  In  its  com- 
pound form,  corresponding  to  the  strike  to  secure  the 
discharge  of  a  third  person  and  the  sympathetic  strike, 
it  is  generally  declared  unlawful. 

In  the  following  monograph  Mr.  Laidler  has  under- 
taken to  examine  the  economic  and  legal  aspects  of 
the  boycott.  Approaching  the  problem  without  preju- 
dice or  preconception,  he  presents  to  the  reader, 
through  a  clear  summary  of  important  cases,  the  judi- 
cial reasoning  that  has  led  some  of  our  courts  to  con- 
demn the  boycott;  others  to  uphold  its  legality.  The 
use  that  has  actually  been  made  of  the  boycott  and 
the  social  and  economic  arguments  for  and  against 
such  use  are  reviewed  with  equal  thoroughness.  Re- 
enforcing  his  conclusion  that  there  is  no  justification 
either  in  law  or  economics  for  the  distinction  which 
most  of  our  courts  have  drawn  between  the  right  to 
strike  and  the  right  to  boycott,  his  concluding  chapters 
show  the  probable  consequences  if  wage-earners  be  per- 
manently deprived  of  the  right  to  boycott  and  the  safe- 
guards, in  the  self-interest  of  the  workers  themselves, 
in  public  opinion  and  in  the  defensive  measures  which 
employers  and  dealers  may  adopt,  if  this  right  be 
freely  conceded. 

The  publication  of  so  careful  a  study  of  this  im- 
portant phase  of  the  labor  problem  could  hardly  be 
more  timely.  A  Federal  Commission  on  Industrial 
Relations  is  just  beginning  its  inquiry.  In  this  mono- 
graph it  will  find  all  of  the  facts  and  arguments  on 


20  INTRODUCTION 

which  its  conclusions  with  reference  to  the  boycott  must 
be  based.  Congress  is  certain  in  the  near  future  to  con- 
sider the  amendment  of  the  Anti-trust  act  so  far  as  it 
relates  to  labor  organizations.  Here  are  reviewed  the 
important  boycott  cases,  the  Danbury  Hatters'  case 
and  the  Buck's  Stove  case,  which  have  arisen  under 
that  statute  and  the  common  law.  Lawyers  and 
judges  are  constantly  called  upon  to  advise  clients  or 
to  settle  cases  touching  the  law  with  reference  to  boy- 
cotts. Mr.  Laidler  shows  clearly  the  trend  of  judicial 
opinion  from  the  conservatism  of  our  Eastern  courts 
to  the  radicalism  of  those  of  Western  states,  like  Wash- 
ington and  California.  Finally,  in  our  colleges  there 
is  growing  interest  in  the  study  of  the  labor  problem 
and  increasing  appreciation  of  books  which  bring  stu- 
dents close  to  the  realities  of  the  situation.  This  is  an 
excellent  ''case  book"  on  the  boycott  which  could  be 
profitably  employed  even  by  instructors  who  were  dis- 
posed to  dissent  from  the  author's  conclusions.  Thus, 
to  the  Federal  Commissioners,  to  members  of  Con- 
gress, and  legislators  generally,  to  lawyers,  to  judges 
and  to  students  and  teachers  of  economics,  as  well  as 
to  labor  leaders  and  employers  of  labor,  the  book  is 
to  be  heartily  commended.  If,  as  a  result  of  its  peru- 
sal, light  be  thrown  upon  a  difficult  problem  and  the 
way  prepared  for  making  the  law  at  once  more  rational 
and  more  uniform  in  a  field  where  it  is  now  illogical 
and  conflicting,  the  purpose  of  the  author  will  be 
attained. 

It  is  a  special  gratification  that  the  requirements  for 
the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  Columbia  Uni- 
versity have  resulted  in  the  publication  of  so  excellent 
and  useful  a  book. 

Henry  R.  Seager. 
Columbia  University, 

New  York,  December,  19 13. 


PART  I 
ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  BOYCOTTS 


CHAPTER    I 

HISTORY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT 

Boycott  and  the  Irish  League 

Few  words  can  boast  of  as  curious  and  Interesting 
an  introduction  Into  the  English  language  as  can  the 
subject  of  this  book — the  boycott. 

''I  was  dining  with  Father  John  O'Malley,"  writes 
James  Redpath,  In  his  "Talks  of  Ireland,"  1881/  "and 
he  asked  me  why  I  was  not  eating.  I  said,  'I  am  both- 
ered about  a  word.'  'What  Is  It?'  asked  Father  John. 
'Well,'  said  I,  'when  a  people  ostracise  a  landgrabber 
we  call  It  social  excommunication,  but  we  ought  to 
have  an  entirely  different  word  to  signify  ostracism 
applied  to  a  landlord  or  a  land  agent  like  Boycott. 
Ostracism  won't  do.  The  peasantry  would  not  know 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  I  can't  think  of  any- 
thing.' 'No,'  said  Father  John,  'ostracism  wouldn't  do.' 
He  looked  down,  tapped  his  big  forehead,  and  said, 
'How  would  It  do  to  call  It  "to  boycott  him"?' 

"Then  I  was  delighted,  and  I  said,  'Tell  your  people 
to  call  It  boycotting,  so  that  when  the  reporters  come 
down  from  Dublin  and  London  they  will  hear  the 
word.  Use  It  yourself  In  the  Castlebar  Telegraph. 
I'm  going  to  Dublin,  and  will  ask  the  young  orators  of 
the  land  league  to  give  It  that  name.  I  will  use  It  In 
my  correspondence,  and  between  us  we  will  make  It 
famous.'     Father  John  and  I  kept  our  compact.     He 

^Magazine  of  Western  History,  v.  5,  pp.  214,  215. 
23 


24  BOYCOTTS 

was  the  first  man  who  uttered  the  word,  and  I  was  the 
first  who  wrote  it." 

It  thus  happened  that  through  the  wit  of  an  Irish 
priest  and  an  American  journalist  a  name  was  given, 
in  the  summer  of  1880,  to  that  method  of  warfare 
which  was  then  being  resorted  to  by  an  enraged  people 
against  the  exactions  of  the  landlord  class,  a  method 
which  has  since  been  used  time  without  number  by  op- 
pressed and  oppressors  throughout  the  civilized  world. 
Incidentally  also  the  infamies  of  Captain  Boycott  were 
immortalized. 

The  events  giving  rise  to  the  conversation  between 
Father  O'Malley  and  Redpath  are  noteworthy.  For 
years  the  Irish  peasantry  had  been  heavily  burdened  by 
the  British  landlord  class.  Lands  had  been  confis- 
cated, homes  of  the  peasants  destroyed,  starvation 
wages  paid.  As  the  year  1880  approached,  evictions 
became  more  numerous  and  their  causes  more  trivial. 
In  1879  there  were  1,000  evictions,  as  against  an  aver- 
age of  500,  from  1 872-1 877,  and  in  the  first  half  of 
1880  the  number  exceeded  1,000.  The  landlords  were 
taking  advantage  of  the  famine  of  1878  to  clear  their 
estates.  Intense  suffering  was  the  inevitable  result. 
The  outcome  was  the  Land  League,  formed  to  repre- 
sent the  peasants.^ 

Among  the  most  hated  of  the  retainers  of  the  land- 
lord class  was  Captain  Boycott,  an  agent  of  Lord  Erne 
in  County  Mayo,  in  the  district  of  Connemara.  In  the 
summer  of  1880  he  sent  his  tenants  to  the  field  to  cut 
oats,  offering  the  men  and  women  32  and  24  cents  a 
day  respectively,  instead  of  62  and  37  cents,  the  regu- 
lar wages.  They  refused  to  serve,  and  Boycott,  his 
wife,  nieces,  nephews  and  servants  undertook  to  har- 
vest the  crop,  but  desisted,  thoroughly  exhausted,  after 
a  few  hours'  labor.  The  tenants  were  finally  induced 
by  the  pleas  of  Mrs.  Boycott  to  return  to  work,  but  on 

*  Herbert  Paul,  History  of  Modern  Europe,  v.  4,  p.  164. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT  25 

rent  day  were  confronted  by  a  formidable  array  of  18 
,  constables  equipped  with  eviction  papers.  Three 
papers  were  served,  whereupon  the  outraged  workers 
called  a  great  mass  meeting,  induced  the  servants, 
herders  and  drivers  to  desert  Boycott,  and  secured  the 
pledges  of  those  present  to  cease  all  relations  with  the 
captain  and  his  family. 

At  the  call  of  Boycott,  a  relief  expedition,  consist- 
ing of  seven  regiments  and  fifty  hired  men,  was  soon 
rushed  to  the  estate,  and  the  potatoes  and  other  com- 
modities were  finally  gathered  at  an  expense  of  between 
$35,000  and  $50,000 — many  times  the  value  of  the 
crop.  Three  days  after  the  decree  of  social  ostracism 
was  pronounced,  the  word  "boycott"  was  invented.  It 
was  first  used  publicly  by  Redpath  in  August,  1880,  in 
the  village  of  Deenane.  In  September  of  the  same 
year,  at  Clare  Morris  and  Clonbur,  in  describing  the 
workings  of  this  device,  Redpath  declared: 

"This  great  reform,  as  you  can  see,  can  be  achieved 
without  shedding  a  drop  of  blood,  without  violence, 
without  breaking  any  law — English,  human  or  divine. 
But  if  a  man  does  take  a  farm  from  which  a  poor  ten- 
ant has  been  evicted,  I  conjure  you  to  do  him  no  bodily 
harm.  .  .  .  Act  toward  him  as  the  Queen  of  England 
would  act  to  you  If  she  lived  in  Clonbur.  Act  toward 
his  wife  as  the  Queen  of  England  would  act  toward 
your  good  wife  if  she  lived  in  Clonbur.  Act  toward  his 
children  as  the  Queen  of  England  would  act  toward 
your  children !  .  .  .  She  would  not  regard  you  nor 
your  wife  nor  your  children  as  her  equals.  Now,  Imi- 
tate the  Queen  of  England,  and  don't  speak  to  a  land- 
grabber  nor  a  landgrabber's  wife  nor  to  a  landgrab- 
ber's  children.  ...  If  a  landgrabber  comes  to  town 
and  wants  to  sell  anything,  don't  do  him  any  bodily 
harm.  ...  If  you  see  a  landgrabber  going  to  a  shop 
to  buy  bread,  or  clothing,  or  even  whiskey,  go  you  to 
the  shopkeeper  at  once,  don't  threaten  him.  .  .  .  Just 
say  to  him  that  under  British  law  he  has  the  undoubted 


26  BOYCOTTS 

right  to  sell  his  goods  to  anyone,  but  that  there  Is  no 
British  law  to  compel  you  to  buy  another  penny's  worth 
from  him,  and  that  you  will  never  do  it  as  long  as  you 
live."i 

Similar  advice  was  given  to  the  peasants  by  Parnell 
and  others  during  this  period.^  That  the  peasantry 
were  not  slow  in  availing  themselves  of  the  suggestions 
given  was  the  opinion  of  the  London  Times,  Novem- 
ber 5,  1885: 

*Tt  means  that  a  peaceful  subject  of  the  Queen  Is 
denied  food  and  drink,  and  that  he  is  run  down  in  his 
business,  that  his  cattle  are  unsalable  at  fairs;  that  the 
smith  will  not  shoe  his  horse  nor  the  carpenter  mend 
his  cart;  that  old  friends  pass  him  by  on  the  other  side 
of  the  street,  making  the  sign  of  the  cross;  that  his 
children  are  hooted  at  the  village  school;  that  he  sits 
apart,  like  an  outcast,  in  his  usual  place  of  worship,  all 
for  doing  nothing  but  that  the  law  says  that  he  has  a 
perfect  right  to  do." 

The  boycott  as  tried  In  Ireland  was  almost  univer- 
sally condemned  by  the  landholding  class.  However, 
it  was  effective.  It  called  the  attention  of  the  people  of 
England  and  Ireland  as  perhaps  did  no  other  weapon 
to  many  grave  injustices.  Doubtless  in  many  instances 
it  worked  hardship  upon  innocent  people.  It  was  a 
crude  and  often  an  undiscriminating  weapon  in  the  war 
against  greed.  It  was  called  into  being  by  that  greed. 
It  was  a  result,  as  Whiteboyism  and  Molly  Magulrism 
were  results,  and,  although  seemingly  harsh  in  appli- 
cation, was  one  of  the  mildest  forms  of  protest  experi- 
mented with  up  to  that  time,  and  mild  indeed  when 
compared  with  some  of  the  weapons  used  by  the  edu- 
cated ruling  class.     In  fact,  it  was  but  a  counterpart 

^Magazine  of  Western  History,  v.  5,  pp.  213  et  seq. 
*  Barry  O'Brien,  Life  of  Parnell,  pp.  236,  237. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT  27 

of  the  weapon  used  In  innumerable  instances  by  the 
propertied  classes  in  their  contests  with  the  peasants. 

"You  all  know  that  Mr.  Gordon  is  the  best  shoe- 
maker in  Connaught,"  said  Redpath  again,  in  address- 
ing the  people  of  Clonblur,  "and  that  he  once  em- 
ployed a  dozen  workmen.  He  made  all  the  boots  and 
shoes  for  the  gentry  in  that  part  of  the  country.  Just 
as  soon  as  he  addressed  a  land  league  meeting  his 
custom  fell  off,  landlords  wouldn't  buy  shoes  from  him, 
and  my  friend  Gordon  was  almost  ruined.  Now  imi- 
tate these  landlords."^ 

Boycotting  in  Past  History 

Although  the  word  "boycott"  is  of  comparatively 
recent  origin,  the  practice  of  boycotting,  if  we  disas- 
sociate that  term  from  any  necessary  connection  with 
labor  disputes,  and  define  it  for  the  time  being  as  an 
organized  effort  to  withdraw  and  induce  others  to 
withdraw  from  social  or  business  relations  with  an- 
other, has  been  resorted  to  since  the  dawn  of  history. 
The  Jews  shunned  the  Samaritans;  the  Pharisees  boy- 
cotted the  Publicans,  as  far  as  social  intercourse  was 
concerned.  In  Greece,  for  many  years,  following  the 
rule  of  Cleisthenes,  the  people  ostracised  their  unsuc- 
cessful claimants  for  political  preference,  and  in  the 
Roman  Empire,  by  the  ignis  et  aqua  interdictio,  many 
of  the  best  Romans  were  rendered  outcasts.  Those  In- 
curring the  wrath  of  the  church  of  Rome  during  the 
Middle  Ages,  and  receiving  the  Interdicts  of  excom- 
munication, may  also  be  said  to  have  felt  the  force  of 
at  least  one  form  of  this  weapon. 

A  unique  combination  for  the  purpose  of  boycotting, 
and  one  in  many  ways  strikingly  similar  to  that  Inau- 
gurated by  the  Irish  Land  League,  existed  In  France 
during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries.^     In 

^Magazine  of  Western  History,  v.  5,  p.  213. 
-R.   E.    Prothera,  French  Boycott  and  Its  Cure,  19th  Century, 
V.  28,  pp.  778-785. 


28  BOYCOTTS 

Picardy,  in  northern  France,  the  farmers,  renters  of 
land,  claimed  not  only  the  right  of  perpetual  enjoy- 
ment of  the  plot  of  land  which  they  occupied,  but  also 
power  to  dispose  of  this  right  to  their  representative 
by  sale  or  will.  They  also  denied  the  right  of  the 
landlord  to  let  or  sell  their  land  over  their  heads,  to 
evict  them  from  their  holdings,  to  raise  the  rent  or  to 
refuse  to  lease  the  land  to  their  nominees.  For  this 
right,  which  was  in  conflict  with  the  French  law,  the 
farmers  paid  a  certain  premium,  and  if  the  landlord 
had  the  temerity  to  refuse  to  recognize  these  unwrit- 
ten laws,  the  aggrieved  renter  would  hasten  to  the 
village  cabaret,  and  indignantly  Inform  his  neighbors, 
'*Je  n'ai  jamais  demonte  personne;  fespere  que  per- 
Sonne  ne  me  demontera/'  (I  have  never  yet  dispos- 
sessed anyone;  I  hope  that  no  one  will  dispossess  me.) 
The  farm  was  then  boycotted  by  the  countryside.  It 
was  almost  Impossible  to  rent  it.  A  new  tenant  was 
denounced  as  a  landgrabber.  He  could  not  hire  labor. 
His  sons  obtained  no  employment;  his  daughters,  no 
husbands.  He  was  ostracised  by  his  neighbors,  who 
refused  him  assistance.  His  fields  were  often  sown 
with  tares  by  men  with  masks;  his  implements  were 
broken;  his  cattle  mutilated;  his  houses  burned,  and 
sometimes  he  himself  was  fiercely  attacked.  In  one 
Instance,  when  a  farmer  was  hanged  for  participating 
in  these  onslaughts,  his  fellow  farmers  decreed  that 
the  wealthiest  bachelor  in  town  should  marry  the  dead 
man's  widow,  and  secure  a  dower  from  the  town,  ''et  la 
chose  fut  execute  J'  This  system  lasted  from  1679 
until  far  into  the  nineteenth  century,  and  resulted  In 
many  bitter  feuds. 

The  Boycott  and  the  American  Revolution 

From  the  year  1327,  the  date  of  the  boycotting  of 
the  monks  of  Christ's  Church  by  the  citizens  of  Can- 


HISTORY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT  29 

terbury,^  to  the  time  of  the  Revolution,  many  were  the 
instances  of  boycotting  in  England. 

In  America  this  weapon  was  first  used  on  a  large 
scale  in  the  troubles  with  Great  Britain  leading  up  to 
the  Revolutionary  War.  Its  frequent  practice  at  that 
period  is  often  cited  by  the  supporters  of  boycotts  in 
labor  disputes  to  Indicate  its  thoroughly  American 
character. 

Following  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act  of  March, 
1765,  the  Boston,  New  York  and  Philadelphia  mer- 
chants resolved  to  cease  importing  British  goods  until 
this  obnoxious  measure  should  be  repealed.  Retail 
merchants  refused  to  sell  British  goods,  and  customers 
to  buy  them.  The  Daughters  of  Liberty  were  among 
the  most  militant  of  the  boycotters.  Later  on  the  Sons 
of  Liberty  began  an  active  boycotting  campaign  against 
merchants  dealing  with  goods  imported  from  ^he 
mother  country,  distributing  circulars  broadcast  and 
posting  them  on  the  doors  of  the  Tory  merchants.  A 
typical  poster  read: 

*Tt  Is  desired  that  the  Sons  of  Liberty  would  not 
buy  any  one  thing  of  them  (naming  the  merchants), 
for  In  so  doing  they  will  bring  disgrace  upon  them- 
selves and  their  posterity  forever  and  ever.     Amen.'* 

Perhaps  the  most  famous  attempt  followed  the  Im- 
position of  the  tax  on  tea,  when,  in  December,  1773, 
succeeding  a  period  of  peaceful  boycotting,  the  Boston 
Tea  Party  boarded  the  British  ship  in  the  Boston  har- 
bor and  threw  three  hundred  chests  of  tea  Into  the 
sea.  Many  of  the  state  legislatures,  the  Continental 
Congress  and  numerous  seaports  also  passed  boycot- 
ting resolutions,^  and  after  the  war  considerable  of  this 
practice  was  resorted  to  between  the  states.^     In  the 

^  Ely,  The  Labor  Movement,  p.  297. 

^Coman,   Industrial  History    of  the    United  States,   p.    104,   and 
Magazine  of  Western  History,  v.  5,  pp.  218-220. 
'  McMaster,  History  of  the  United  States,  v.  i,  p.  404- 


30  BOYCOTTS 

embargoes  against  British  vessels  during  the  War  of 
1 8 12  we  witness  another  example  of  the  use  of  this 
device. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  boycotting  in  its  broader  sense 
has  been  a  potent  weapon  for  many  centuries  in  the 
hands  of  state  and  church,  organizations  of  the  agra- 
rian population  and  of  political  rebels,  and,  in  fact, 
of  all  strata  of  the  population.  We  will  now  turn  to 
its  employment  in  America  during  the  last  few  gen- 
erations. 


CHAPTER    II 

SOME    MODERN    FORMS    OF   BOYCOTTS    IN   THE 
UNITED  STATES 

The  Consumers*  Boycott 

Many  forms  of  boycott  have  been  practiced  in  re- 
cent years  in  America.  A  variation  generally  given 
wide  publicity  is  the  consumers'  boycott.  It  is  used 
chiefly  as  a  protest  against  the  high  cost  of  Hving, 
although,  organized  under  the  National  Consumers' 
League,  it  is  directed  primarily  to  improving  labor 
conditions. 

Meat  has  been  one  of  the  articles  most  frequently 
subjected  to  attack.  "Mayor  of  Boston  Boycotts 
Meat"  reads  a  typical  headUne  in  the  New  York 
Herald.^  The  article  declares  that  Mayor  John  Fitz- 
gerald calls  the  people  throughout  the  country  to  eat 
as  little  meat  as  possible.  "We  can  defeat  those  who 
are  responsible  for  the  high  cost  of  living,"  says  the 
Mayor,  "by  boycotting  every  kind  of  food  on  which 
the  price  is  raised." 

The  women  of  Brooklyn  and  Philadelphia,  in  the 
summer  of  19 12,  forced  many  butchers  to  close  shop 
until  lower  prices  were  charged.  Especially  effective 
was  a  movement  in  the  Jewish  section  of  New  York, 
where,  at  one  time,  according  to  reports,  6,000  retail 
dealers  in  kosher  meat  in  Manhattan,  and  400  in 
Brownsville,  Brooklyn,  had  closed  shop,  awaiting  a 
reduction  in  the  prices  of  the  wholesalers.  During 
this  period  a  Brooklyn  butcher  shop  was  entered  by  a 
^New  York  Herald,  Aug.  4,  1912. 
31 


32  BOYCOTTS 

number  of  angry  housewives  and  the  meat  sprinkled 
with  kerosene.^ 

An  even  more  carefully  planned  campaign  against 
the  same  industry  was  instituted  in  January  of  1910, 
when  labor,  business  men's  and  other  organizations, 
particularly  in  the  important  cities  of  the  middle  West, 
pledged  to  abstain  from  the  purchase  of  meat  for  sixty 
days,  and  circulated  huge  petitions,  some  of  them 
signed  by  thirty  thousand  men  and  women,  against  the 
eating  of  meat.^  Secretary  Dickinson  of  the  War  De- 
partment some  time  ago  was  said  to  have  ordered  the 
army  commissary  to  cease  patronizing  the  "Standard 
Oil  Trust,"  and  a  similar  ban  was  placed  on  the  "To- 
bacco Trust."  The  House  Wives'  League  of  New 
York  has  also  been  prominent  in  the  use  of  this  weapon 
against  unobliging  retailers  ^  and  high  priced  butter 
dealers. 

A  unique  example  of  a  threatened  consumers'  boy- 
cott was  witnessed  in  Chicago  in  191 1,  when  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Catholic  Societies  menaced  the  the- 
ater managers  with  their  disfavor  should  they  stage 
Salome  and  certain  other  prescribed  productions. 
Other  instances  may  be  multiplied. 

The  effectiveness  of  these  spasmodic  efforts  is  ex- 
ceedingly difficult  to  estimate.  It  usually  happens  that 
the  public  gives  heed  the  first  few  days,  when  the  or- 
ganized boycott  is  widely  heralded  by  the  press  as  a 
striking  news  item.  When  the  boycott,  however,  ceases 
to  be  "good  copy,"  and  its  existence  is  more  or  less  ig- 
nored by  the  newspapers,  the  average  citizen  quickly 
forgets  about  the  existence  of  the  ban,  and  continues  his 
purchase  of  the  boycotted  article.  We  are  told  that, 
as  a  result  of  the  meat  boycott  in  Cleveland  in  1 9 1  o,  the 
price  of  meat  was  reduced,  on  the  average,  two  cents 

^Brooklyn  Eagle,  June  22,  1912. 

^  Ibid.,  January  21,  1910. 

'Nczv  York  Times,  March  26,  1912. 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       33 

a  pound.^  Another  report  of  the  same  general  boycott 
declares,  however,  that  the  boycott  resulted  in  decreas- 
ing the  supply  of  beef,  but  not  the  price.  "Report  in 
the  Chicago  papers  yesterday,"  runs  the  article,  "shows 
that  16,000  steers  had  been  sent  to  the  slaughter  house, 
whereas  25,000  had  been  the  normal  Monday  ship- 
ment."2 

Another  indirect  form  of  the  consumers'  boycott, 
primarily  for  the  purpose  of  bettering  the  conditions 
of  women  and  child  labor  in  department  stores  and 
factories,  has  been  employed  for  a  number  of  years  by 
the  National  Consumers'  League.  For  years  this 
league  maintained  and  widely  distributed  a  so-called 
"white-list"  of  those  department  stores  which  sup- 
posedly observed  certain  rules  as  to  wages,  hours  and 
sanitation.  Although  its  publication  undoubtedly  had 
some  effect  in  diverting  trade  from  department  stores 
not  on  the  list  and  in  improving  conditions  of  labor 
among  these  establishments,  the  difficulty  encountered 
in  persuading  these  stores  to  give  sufficient  wages  to 
their  help  has  led  the  League  to  discontinue  its  issu- 
ance, at  least  in  New  York  City.  Mrs.  Florence  Kel- 
ley,  general  secretary  of  the  League,  in  a  communica- 
tion/ of  September  6,  19 12,  writes: 

"The  Consumers'  League  of  the  City  of  New  York 
has  abandoned  the  pubHcation  of  the  white  list  chiefly 
by  reason  of  the  insufficient  wages  paid  in  every  depart- 
ment store  in  New  York  City.  In  fact,  I  think  that  all 
discussion  of  white  lists  may  henceforth  be  treated  as 
studies  in  ancient  history;  and  the  advocacy  of  mini- 
mum wage  boards  is  likely  to  take  the  place  formerly 
held  by  the  advocacy  of  the  white  list  on  the  part  of 
officers  and  members  of  the  Consumers'  League.  The 
experience  of  twenty  years  is  conclusive  that  wages  can- 
not be  dealt  with  by  the  method  of  persuasion.  There 
must  be  coercion,  either  through  efficient  organization 

^  Nezv  York  Times,  January  20,  1910. 
^New  York  Call,  February  i,  1910. 


34  BOYCOTTS 

of  the  wage  earners — which  is  impossible  in  the  case  of 
the  shifting  mass  of  young  department  store  employees 
— or  by  legislation  for  minimum  wage  boards." 

The  League  also  grants  the  Consumers'  League 
Label  to  those  factories  which,  in  its  opinion,  obey 
the  state  factory  law,  make  all  of  the  goods  on  the 
premises,  do  not  overwork  their  help  and  do  not  em- 
ploy girls  under  sixteen  years  old.  The  label  is  used 
now  only  on  women's  apparel.  Up  to  January,  19 12, 
the  League  had  authorized  the  use  of  this  label  in 
fifty-eight  factories  of  the  country,  and  claimed  good 
results  in  raising  the  standard  of  employment  in  many 
industries. 

While  chief  emphasis  is  laid  by  the  League  on  the 
betterment  of  living  conditions  for  women  and  girls, 
the  consumer  is  often  urged  to  purchase  labeled  goods 
on  the  ground  that  they  are  more  likely  to  be  free  from 
disease.  The  white  list  before  referred  to  has  often 
been  called  the  negative  boycott.  The  legality  of  this 
form  of  boycott  has  not  been  questioned. 

Another  unique  experiment  in  inducing  friends  of 
labor  to  purchase  garments  made  under  decent  condi- 
tions, and  indirectly  to  boycott  dealers  unfair  to  labor, 
is  the  Label  Shop,  located,  at  present  writing,  at  14  W. 
37th  Street,  New  York  City.  The  reason  for  such  an 
establishment  is  given  by  Helen  Howell  Moorhead, 
one  of  its  officers,  as  follows : 

"A  frequent  experience  of  anyone  who  has  spoken 
about  the  work  of  the  Consumers'  League  has  been  the 
following:  After  a  stirring  appeal  to  an  audience  not 
to  buy  goods  made  by  sweated  labor  comes  the  ques- 
tion in  many  voices :  'Where  can  I  be  sure  of  buying 
goods  made  under  proper  conditions?'  As  an  answer, 
the  Consumers'  League  used  to  give  the  names  of  regu- 
lar shops  where  label  goods  were  sold.  But  customers, 
on  asking  for  these  articles,  received  scant  courtesy  and 
sometimes  even  met  with  a  refusal  to  display  any  arti- 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       35 

cles  at  all.  So  a  showcase  was  established  in  the 
Women's  Trade  Union  League  headquarters,  showing 
samples  of  underclothes  bearing  a  Trade  Union  Label. 
Here  orders  could  be  given,  and  the  consumer  could  be 
sure  that  her  power — the  theoretically  immeasurable 
power  of  the  consumer  which  seems  to  individual  exer- 
cise so  infinitesimal — was  wisely  expended.  From  this 
one  showcase,  and  from  its  conscientious  but  despair- 
ing purchasers,  sprang  The  Label  Shop." 

The  shop  has  been  in  existence  since  191 1.  It  has  a 
capital  stock  of  $10,000,  distributed  in  $10  shares 
among  about  100  members  of  The  Consumers'  League, 
The  Trade  Union  League  and  The  Association  of  Col- 
legiate Alumnae.  The  business  in  191 2  amounted  to 
from  $15,000  to  $20,000,  and  permitted  the  company 
to  declare  a  dividend  of  4%. 

The  shop  confines  its  sales  to  clothing  for  women.  It 
carries  only  goods  which  bear  the  label  of  the  Con- 
sumers' League  and  of  the  Trade  Unions.  When  a 
protocol  label  is  created,  it  will  probably  recognize  this. 
Its  sales  among  the  women  members  of  the  trade 
unions  are  but  small,  partly  on  account  of  the  com- 
paratively high  prices  of  the  goods. 

The  shop  is  constantly  sending  literature  and  lec- 
turers to  such  sympathetic  organizations  as  the  Wom- 
en's Municipal  League,  and  various  collegiate  and  re- 
form organizations,  is  securing  the  indorsement  of 
these  bodies,  conducting  exhibits  in  various  parts  of  the 
city,  and  persuading  trade  unionists  to  send  lecturers 
throughout  their  unions  advocating  the  purchase  of 
goods  from  the  shop.  Whether  or  not  this  experiment 
will  prove  a  permanent  success  it  is  too  early  to  say. 
Given  the  proper  support,  the  work  has  splendid  possi- 
bihties. 

The  Employers'  Boycott 

Another  important  class  of  boycotts  in  the  United 
States  is  that  of  the  employers'  boycotts.     These  are 


36  BOYCOTTS 

of  two  kinds:  those  waged  against  other  firms  or  in- 
stitutions which  show  too  favorable  an  attitude  toward 
labor,  and  those  directed  primarily  against  troublesome 
wage-earners.  The  latter  are  generally  called  Hack- 
lists. 

The  employers^  boycott  may  be  defined  as  an  or- 
ganized effort  of  employers  of  labor  and  monied  in- 
terests generally,  to  induce  others  of  their  class  to  cease 
business  relations  with  those  who,  in  their  opinion,  are 
too  active  in  the  cause  of  labor. 

An  illustrative  instance  of  this  form  of  boycotting 
was  given  in  the  American  Industries,  the  official  maga- 
zine of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers — 
an  organization  bitterly  opposed  to  boycotts  as  prac- 
ticed by  working  men.  The  Canadian  Bank  of  Com- 
merce of  Windsor,  Canada,  according  to  an  article 
in  this  pubHcation,  October,  1909,  had  advertised 
in  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin  and  in  several  of  the 
Scripps-McRae  papers,  newspapers  favorable  to  or- 
ganized labor.  The  bank,  on  September  9,  1909,  re- 
ceived the  following  letter  from  C.  W.  Post,  the  mili- 
tant antagonist  of  so  many  forms  of  trade  unionism: 

"This  growth  toward  Socialism  and  ultimate  confis- 
cation and  division  of  property,  set  up  and  kept  in  mo- 
tion by  those  unthrifty  individuals  consumed  with  hate 
for  the  thrifty,  who  by  hard  work  and  economy  acquire 
a  little  means,  is  to  a  large  extent  kept  alive  by  certain 
newspapers  which  pander  to  the  unthrifty  class,  believ- 
ing the  numbers  in  that  class  to  be  in  the  majority.  .  .  . 
fVe  have  decided  not  to  continue  to  supply  money  to 
such  papers  to  be  used  in  the  destructive  work  they 
are  engaged  in,  and  have  therefore  withdrawn  adver- 
tisements from  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin  and  several 
of  the  Scripps-McRae  papers,  particularly  the  Detroit 
News  and  the  Akron  Press,  as  well  as  some  others. 
Aside  from  the  principle  involved,  we  have  good  rea- 
sons to  doubt  the  earning  capacity  for  advertisers  of 
such  papers  whose  circulation  should  be  most  closely 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       37 

investigated,  and  the  character  of  the  readers  ob- 
served. Believing  it  time  for  the  peaceful,  law-abiding 
citizens  to  stand  together  in  defence  of  the  growing 
and  Insidious  attacks  of  the  unthrifty,  we  have  been  led 
to  place  this  matter  before  you.  Merchandise  can  be 
best  sold  by  advertisers  in  papers  which  stand  in  open 
support  of  the  thrifty  citizens,  by  far  in  the  majority. 
On  the  other  hand,  support  of  the  papers  which  pander 
to  the  mob  is  dangerous  to  the  prosperity  and  well 
being  of  the  community  and  nation.  Every  thoughtful 
citizen  should  ponder  well,  look  to  the  future,  and  do 
his  share  toward  preventing  the  growth  of  the  de- 
structive theories  now  being  taught."     (Italics  mine.) 

The  Lincoln  Farm  Association  case  provides  an- 
other Instance  of  this  form  of  boycotting.  This  asso- 
ciation was  formed  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  Me- 
morial National  Park  in  commemoration  of  Abraham 
Lincoln.  Samuel  Gompers,  president  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  was  made  one  of  the  members 
of  its  Board  of  Trustees,  and  the  union  label  was  used 
on  the  association's  printing.  Several  members  of  the 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers  were  asked  to 
give  contributions.  The  National  Founders'  Associa- 
tion, the  Metal  Trades'  Association  and  the  Board  of 
Directors  of  the  N.  A.  M.  thereupon  passed  a  vigor- 
ous resolution  In  deprecation  of  the  favoritism  shown 
to  organized  labor,  and  requested  their  members  to  re- 
fuse funds  until  the  alleged  favoritism  ceased.  The 
resolution  read  in  part: 

"Whereas  there  is  evidence  that  the  association  has 
adopted  the  closed  shop  principle  under  which  the  work 
of  the  project  Is  to  be  conducted,  inasmuch  as  it  has 
selected  as  one  of  its  trustees  the  President  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  Its  stationery  and 
other  literature  bear  the  union  label;  .  .  .  whereas  we 
are  fighting  to  save  twenty  million  free  men  froni  in- 
dustrial   bondage  .  ,  ,   we   ,  .  .  emphatically    disap- 


38  BOYCOTTS 

prove  the  use  in  connection  with  this  enterprise  of  an 
insignia  which  represents  and  stands  for  the  overthrow 
of  the  fundamental  rights  which  Lincoln  cherished 
most  dearly.  Resolved,  That  the  officers  in  charge  of 
the  sacred  memorial  be,  and  they  are  hereby  respect- 
fully but  earnestly  urged  to  abandon  the  objectionable 
closed  shop  emblem,  which  stands  for  industrial  bon- 
dage, and  pubhcly  assure  those  from  whom  the  money 
must  come  that  every  vestige  of  the  class  domination 
will  be  eradicated.  .  .  .  We  recommend  that  the  mem- 
bers of  our  Association,  as  well  as  all  other  citizens 
who  believe  in  industrial  freedom,  withhold  their  con- 
tributions until  the  proper  assurance  is  given  that  the 
open  shop  principle  will  be  recognized  in  all  depart- 
ments of  labor  in  connection  therewith."^ 

Letters  were  also  sent  by  John  Kirby,  Jr.,  after- 
wards president  of  the  N.  A.  M.,  and  others,  to  the 
Memorial  Committee,  protesting  against  the  label, 
*'the  red  emblem  of  anarchy,  the  emblem  of  organized 
effort  to  prevent  those  for  whom  Washington  fought 
and  Lincoln  died  by  the  hand  of  an  assassin,  from 
earning  their  bread  in  the  sweat  of  their  brow,  except 
at  the  pleasure  of  the  organization  for  which  the  label 
stands,"  and  stating  that  he  will  not  only  refuse  to  sub- 
scribe as  long  as  the  present  attitude  is  maintained,  but 
that  he  will  use  all  his  influence  against  such  an  "un- 
righteous and  infamous  proposal."  The  union  label 
finally  disappeared  from  the  letterhead  of  the  Associa- 
tion.^ 

A  few  years  ago,  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  in  its  petition  to 
President  Taft,  alleged  that  the  U.  S.  'Steel  Corpora- 
tion had  been  resorting  to  this  weapon.^  The  petition 
described  the  boycotting  of  the  hotel  in  Vandergrift 
which  harbored  officers  of  the  Federation,  and  of  em- 

^  American  Industries,  December  15,   1907,  pp.  42  et  seq.;  italics 
are  author's. 
''Ibid.,  January  i,  1908. 
'Statement  Against  the  Steel  Trust,  etc.,  1910,  pp.  21-23. 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       39 

ployees  who  patronized  the  hotel,  and  alleged  that  the 
company  even  threatened  to  boycott  the  United  States 
Engineering  Company  if  it  continued  to  encourage  or- 
ganizers of  labor. 

"Following  the  prohibition  of  the  celebration  of 
Labor  Day,"  runs  the  report,  "the  shop  committee  of 
the  molders  employed  by  the  United  States  Engineer- 
ing Company  of  Vandergrift  were  approached  by  their 
employers,  and  urged  to  abstain  from  attending  the 
union  meetings  because  the  United  States  Steel  Cor- 
poration had  threatened  to  cancel  orders  for  steel  cast- 
ings and  rolls  if  the  molders  continued  to  encourage 
the  organizers." 

The  foregoing  instances  are  particularly  interesting 
in  view  of  the  outspoken  opposition  of  the  same  groups 
to  any  form  of  boycotting  by  labor. 

The  Blacklist 

The  blacklist  Is,  perhaps,  one  of  the  most  Insidious 
forms  of  the  boycott  practiced  in  America.  It  is  a 
variety  of  the  employers'  boycott  and  may  be  defined 
as  an  agreement  of  employers  to  refuse  employment  to 
certain  workmen  obnoxious  to  them,  generally  on  ac- 
count  of  their  activities  in  behalf  of  labor. 

In  organizing  a  system  of  blacklisting,  a  list  of 
names  of  workmen  Is  prepared  by  the  employers,  ac- 
companied by  a  number  of  statements  regarding  their 
personal  appearance,  qualifications,  the  reasons  for 
their  discharge — If  they  have  been  dismissed — and 
other  Information  deemed  desirable,  which  Hst  Is  open 
to  the  Inspection  of  certain  other  employers.  At  times 
a  central  bureau  is  maintained  where  this  Information 
Is  placed  on  file  by  all  of  the  business  men  within  the 
agreement.  By  means  of  this  list  manufacturers  and 
others  can  readily  discover  whether  or  not  applicants 
for  work  are  likely  to  prove  "dangerous  labor  agita- 


40  BOYCOTTS 

tors."  Many  are  the  cases  In  which  workers  have  been 
refused  employment  or  have  been  suddenly  discharged 
as  a  result  of  the  secret  use  of  this  weapon. 

In  describing  the  workings  of  the  blacklist,  Prof. 
Richard  T.  Ely  writes : 

"A  man  who  for  any  reason,  be  It  even  whim, 
caprice,  or  personal  spite,  falls  into  disfavor  with  his 
employer  is  placed  on  the  blacklist,  and  his  name,  at 
times  accompanied  by  a  personal  description,  is  sent 
to  the  allied  employers  all  over  the  country.  .  .  .  The 
blacklist  will  pursue  a  man  for  years,  will  drive  him 
out  of  an  honest  trade  .  .  .  and  will  follow  him  across 
the  continent,  and  everywhere  defeat  his  efforts  to  gain 
a  livelihood."^ 

^'Blacklisting  has  the  merit  of  being  very  effective," 
says  Woodrow.  "Its  edict  is  final;  it  troubles  no  jury; 
sends  for  no  sheriff;  its  machinery  Is  purely  clerical, 
with  the  magnificent  advantage  of  being  operative 
wherever  its  agencies  exist.  It  has  its  watchdog  by 
every  door,  and  woe  to  the  man  who,  with  its  brand 
on  his  brow,  seeks  work  and  bread  in  any  one  of  its 
departments.  He  is  proclaimed  by  a  corporation 
Czar.  He  is  in  Siberia,  yet  under  the  dome  of  Wash- 
ington."^ 

Mr.  John  Mitchell  thus  describes  Its  workings : 

"The  blacklist  ...  Is  generally  covert  and  secret. 
In  former  times,  and  possibly  still  to-day,  employers 
frequently  wrote  letters  of  recommendation  to  em- 
ployees discharged  upon  some  trivial  pretext  or  other, 
but  by  a  secret  sign  the  employer  who  read  the  testi- 
monial would  know  that  the  workman  was  blacklisted. 
In  many  cases,  in  fact,  the  blacklist  has  been  negative, 
and  has  been  simply  a  secret  arrangement  by  employ- 
ers not  to  engage  any  workman  without  a  special 
recommendation  from  another  employer."^ 

*Ely,  The  Labor  Movement  in  America,  p.   no. 
''Woodrow,  Labor  Problem,  pp.  288-289. 
*  Mitchell,  Organised  Labor,  p.  291. 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       41 

Since  1832,  when  a  group  of  merchants  and  ship 
owners  of  Boston  resolved  to  employ  no  journeymen 
who  belonged  to  a  labor  union,  or  to  deal  with  any 
master  mechanic  who  gave  work  to  such  journeyman/ 
this  weapon  has  been  used  with  great  effect  In  many 
parts  of  the  country. 

Prof.  Ely  cites  an  instance  a  score  of  years  ago  In 
which  33  men  were  blacklisted  In  Fall  River  for  ask- 
ing for  an  increase  of  wages, ^  and  were  compelled  to 
seek  work  under  assumed  names.  "It  Is  reported  on 
apparently  good  authority,"  he  declared,  "that  one 
railroad  corporation  has  a  book  containing  the  names 
of  a  thousand  blacklisted  persons,  with  a  full  descrip- 
tion of  each." 

Much  evidence  of  blacklisting,  especially  in  the  min- 
ing regions  and  on  the  railroads,  was  adduced  by  the 
Industrial  Commission  in  their  hearings  of  1899. 

Before  this  commission,  D.  C.  Coates,  president  of 
the  Colorado  Federation  of  Labor,  testified^  that,  in 
spite  of  prohibitory  laws,  wage  earners  were  black- 
listed from  one  end  of  the  state  to  the  other.  He 
added: 

"I  know  from  my  own  experience  that  men  are  kept 
from  positions  in  all  parts  of  the  State  of  Colorado 
because  of  their  connection  with  organized  labor.  .  .  . 
They  (the  employing  class)  practically  have  the  power 
to  say  that  a  man  shall  not  have  work;  to  destroy  his 
credit  with  the  merchants;  to  destroy  or  make  value- 
less what  little  property  he  has;  to  separate  him  from 
his  family  and  make  him  a  wanderer  upon  the  face  of 
the  earth." 

Mr.  John  Mitchell  ap-ain  declared  before  the  same 
commission  :* 

^  Ibid.,  p.  290. 

^Ely,  The  Labor  Movement  in  America,  p.  no. 
^Industrial  Commission  Report,  v.  12,  p.  248. 
*Ibid.,Y.  12,  p.  2,7  (April  11,  1899). 


42  BOYCOTTS 

"The  blacklist  has  been  one  of  the  worst  weapons 
organized  labor  has  had  to  contend  against.  For  In- 
stance, If  a  miner  was  discharged  by  a  coal  company 
for  insisting  upon  better  conditions,  or  trying  to  in- 
duce his  fellow  workmen  to  join  his  labor  organization, 
he  often  found  It  Impossible  to  find  employment  in  the 
State  where  he  then  resided.  It  has  always  been  diffi- 
cult for  our  organization  to  secure  proof  that  this 
method  has  been  resorted  to  by  employers.  It  is  a 
well-known  fact,  however,  that  in  the  State  of  West 
Virginia,  if  a  man  dares  to  assert  the  rights  guaran- 
teed, he  is  deprived  of  the  opportunity  to  earn  a  liv- 
ing for  himself  and  family  by  his  employment,  and 
many  times  is  unable  to  secure  employment  at  any  other 
mine  in  the  State." 

Of  the  same  import  were  the  testimonies  of  Ed- 
ward McKay  of  Pennsylvania,^  George  Clark,  a  miner 
of  Colorado,^  and  Harry  Stephenson,  also  a  miner.^ 
Clark  expressed  the  belief  that  the  system  of  black- 
listing was  pretty  well  perfected  throughout  the  state 
of  Colorado.  Stephenson  gave  the  names  of  a  num- 
ber of  mines  which,  he  alleged,  used  this  weapon. 

In  several  instances  during  the  nineties,  railroads 
were  held  guilty  of  this  practice.*  Workers  prominent 
in  the  1894  strike  of  the  American  Railway  Union  de- 
clare that  for  years  numbers  of  them  were  victims  of 
the  blacklist. 

To  what  extent  this  device  has  been  used  during  the 
last  ten  years,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  state,  because 
of  the  secrecy  surrounding  its  employment.  In  an 
effort  to  gain  a  more  adequate  idea  of  its  use,  the  writer 
communicated  with  a  number  of  prominent  officers  of 
the  national  and  international  unions.  Of  the  twenty 
who   replied,   twelve,   or  more  than  one-half,   stated 

^Industrial  Commission  Report,  v.  12,  p.  65  (April  12,  1899). 
^ Ibid.,  p.  328   (July  17,   1899). 
^ Ibid.,  p.  22   (April  10,  1899). 

*  Hundley  v.  Louisville  Railroad  Co.  (Ken.,  1898)  and  Mattison  v. 
Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  R.  R.  (Ohio,  1895)  are  examples. 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       43 

that  blacklists  were  used  more  or  less  effectively,  while 
eight  replied  that  they  could  not  cite  particular  in- 
stances. 

Those  prominent  in  the  engravers',  foundry  work- 
ers', hod  carriers',  carpenters'  and  joiners',  machine 
printers'  and  pipe  caulkers'  unions  declared  that,  so 
far  as  they  were  aware,  the  blacklist  was  not  employed 
to  any  marked  extent  in  their  trades.  Mr.  Gompers 
expressed  the  opinion  that  it  was  not  at  present  re- 
sorted to  extensively.  Many  officials  stated  that  labor 
did  not  fear  the  blacklist,  wherever  a  strong  union 
existed  which  embraced  a  large  percentage  of  the  work- 
ers in  a  particular  trade,  and  that,  in  proportion  as 
the  union  became  strong,  in  that  proportion  the  black- 
list became  ineffective. 

Officers  connected  with  the  railroad,  telegraph,  tex- 
tile, garment  making,  granite,  glass,  leather  saddlery, 
pattern,  mining  and  machine  industries,  and  with  the 
theatrical  profession,  on  the  other  hand,  wrote  that 
they  knew  of  numerous  instances  where  this  list  was 
resorted  to.  Most  of  them  added  that  it  was  exceed- 
ingly difficult  to  obtain  legal  proof. 

In  the  garment  makers'  trade  it  was  averred  that 
the  blacklist  was  used  in  very  many  instances,  and  that 
a  card  index  system  for  tracing  "undesirable"  em- 
ployees was  used  by  one  of  the  employers'  associations. 

"There  are  thousands  of  instances  of  blacklisting, 
far  too  numerous  to  specify,"  wrote  an  official  of  one 
of  the  railroad  unions.  "There  are  so  many  and  they 
come  so  often  that  it  would  be  hard  to  even  think  of 
writing  a  list,"  stated  an  officer  of  another  international 
union.  "It  is  done  so  quietly  and  in  such  an  under- 
handed and  secret  way  that  it  can't  be  proved,  but  hap- 
pens every  day."  A  leather  worker  avowed  that  the 
members  of  a  certain  manufacturers'  association  in 
his  trade  resorted  to  the  blacklist  whenever  there  was 
a  strike  in  their  shops.     "There  are  some  dozens  of 


44  BOYCOTTS 

cases,"  wrote  a  member  of  one  of  the  professional 
unions,  "this  especially  in  Canada  and  the  Southern 
States." 

The  machinists  averred  that  the  blacklisting  system 
found  in  many  large  industrial  centers  often  made  it 
necessary  for  their  members  to  change  their  names  in 
order  to  get  work.  A  journeyman  tailor  recently  told 
the  writer  that  he  was  effectively  blacklisted  a  few 
years  ago  in  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  because  of  his  activity 
in  a  labor  struggle.  Many  other  allegations  of  simi- 
lar import  have  been  received. 

One  of  the  most  recent  charges  of  the  extensive  use 
of  this  weapon  was  made  in  191 2,  in  connection  with 
the  Steel  Trust  investigation,^  by  Mr.  H.  H.  Eagle, 
city  editor  of  the  Pittsburgh  Leader,  Mr.  Eagle  tes- 
tified that  he  had  in  his  possession  a  list  of  3,000  for- 
mer employees  of  the  Carnegie  Steel  Company,  who 
had  caused  disturbance  in  the  ranks  of  labor.  This, 
he  said,  had  been  received  from  one  Morgan,  who 
represented  himself  as  a  labor  agent  of  the  corpora- 
tion. He  further  stated  that,  on  interviewing  a  num- 
ber of  the  men  on  the  list,  he  was  informed  that  they 
had  been  absolutely  unable  to  obtain  work  in  the  mills 
of  the  Steel  Corporation. 

Again,  in  a  recent  strike  against  lumber  firms  of 
Louisiana,  in  the  summer  of  191 2,  the  strikers  accused 
the  Operators'  Association  of  blacklisting  over  a  thou- 
sand men,  and  of  forcing  every  man  applying  for  a  job 
in  the  lumber  industry  to  take  an  anti-union  labor 
oath.2  ^  somewhat  curious  form  of  blacklist  was  or- 
ganized in  191 1  by  the  bankers  of  New  York  and  vi- 
cinity against  bank  clerks,  who  testified  against  Charles 
W.  Morse  in  the  National  Bank  of  North  America 

^New  York  Call,  February  16,  1912,  testimony  before  Stanley  In- 
vestigation Committee,  February  15,  1912. 

^  Coming  Nation,  June  22,  1912,  on  "The  Southern  Lumber  War," 
by  Covington  Hall. 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       45 

investigation,  according  to  United  States  District  At- 
torney Henry  A.  Wise. 

From  the  few  cases  which  have  actually  been  brought 
into  court  during  the  last  twenty  years,  we  can  form 
some  conclusion  regarding  the  existence  of  this  form 
of  the  employers'  boycott.  In  1898  the  Louisville 
Railroad  was  convicted  of  agreeing  with  other  com- 
panies not  to  employ  any  man  who  had  been  discharged 
from  any  of  the  companies,  and  of  entering  on  the 
books  of  the  company  a  false  reason  for  the  discharge 
of  the  defendant  employee.^  In  1895  the  Lake  Shore 
and  Michigan  Railroad  was  declared  guilty  of  some- 
what similar  practices,^  as  was,  more  recently,  the 
Great  Northern  Railroad  Company.^  The  metal 
trades,*  the  cotton  mills,^  and  many  other  industries 
furnish  examples  of  blacklists  which  have  brought  the 
alleged  offenders  into  court. 

One  of  the  latest  of  the  adjudicated  cases  occurred 
in  the  shoe  industry  in  Haverhill,  Mass.,  where  the 
Shoe  Manufacturers'  Association  of  that  city  was 
found  guilty  of  preventing  the  employment  of  strikers 
in  Haverhill  and  vicinity,  by  means  of  the  blacklist, 
and  of  bringing  pressure  on  merchants  to  refuse  credit 
to  their  former  employees.^ 

In  many  of  the  cases  brought  into  court,  while  dis- 
crimination against  unionists  was  shown,  the  court  took 
the  position  that  no  such  discrimination  had  been 
proved  as  would  warrant  conviction.  Following  the 
American  Railway  strike  of  1894,  for  instance,  a  for- 
mer employee  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  declared 
that  it  had  been  impossible,  for  several  years,  for  him 

'Hundley  v.  Louisville  Railroad   (Ken.,  1898). 

^'Mattison  v.  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  (Ct  of  Common 
Pleas,  Ohio,  1895). 

^  Joyce  V.  Great  Northern  Railway  Co.    (Minn.,  1907). 

*  Atkins  V.  W.  &  A.  Fletcher  Co.    (N.  J.,   1903). 

''Willis  V.  Muscogee  Man.  Co.  (Ga.,  1904)-  .    . 

•A.  Cornellier  v.  Haverhill  Shoe  Manufacturers  Association,  re- 
ported in  New  York  Call,  April  2,  1913. 


46  BOYCOTTS 

to  secure  employment  on  any  of  the  other  railroads,  on 
account  of  the  character  of  the  clearance  card  which 
he  had  received.  His  loss  was  estimated  at  $50,000. 
The  court  exonerated  the  railroad,  stating  that  it  was 
not  proved  guilty  of  denying  all  clearance  cards  what- 
soever, but  only  such  as  would  enable  the  complainant 
to  obtain  work.^  Various  courts  have  decided  that  It 
was  not  actionable  for  railroads  to  agree  not  to  employ 
men  who  had  been  on  strike,^  or  for  them  to  Inform 
other  railroads,  on  request,  that  a  former  employee  had 
been  a  labor  agitator,^  or  to  discharge  a  worker  be- 
cause he  was  a  union  man.*  In  fact.  In  the  case  of 
Adair  v.  U.  S.  (1908),  that  part  of  the  Erdman  law 
which  made  It  illegal  to  discharge  a  workman,  because 
of  his  union  affiliations,  was  pronounced  unconstitu- 
tional by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  In 
the  eyes  of  some  labor  leaders  this  decision  practically 
legalized  this  war  measure. 

In  view  of  the  many  proved  instances  of  the  use  of 
the  blacklist,  the  blacklisting  possibilities  of  many  of 
the  publications  and  employment  bureaus  of  the  em- 
ployers' associations  have  special  significance.  The 
American  Industrial  and  Commercial  Agency  Com- 
pany, with  headquarters  at  Toledo,  Ohio,  recently  com- 
piled a  book  which  purported  to  give  the  rating  of 
workmen  as  to  wages,  workmanship,  character,  produc- 
tion, hours  of  labor,  etc.  "Labor  men  familiar  with 
the  plan  and  scope  of  the  enterprise,"  stated  the  Brook- 
lyn Eagle,  "declare  that  It  is  the  biggest  blacklisting 
scheme  ever  attempted,  while  on  the  other  hand  the 
general  manager  Insists  that  It  holds  out  to  the  working 
man  opportunities  for  advancement  not  hitherto  en- 
joyed."^ 

*  McDonald  v.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.   (III.,  1900). 
/New  York  City  Street  Railway  Co.  v.  Schaffer  (Ohio,  1902). 

^Wabash  Railroad  Co.  v.  Young  (Ind.,  1904). 

*  Boyer  v.  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company  (C.  C.  E.  D.,  Mo., 

1903). 
^Brooklyn  Daily  Eagle,  June  10,  191 1. 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       47 

An  employment  bureau  which  could  easily  be  used 
to  blacklist  union  laborers  is  described  by  Dr.  Ed- 
wards.^ The  organization  Is  known  as  the  Manufac- 
turers' Bureau  of  Hartford  County,  and  consists  of 
the  officers  of  some  thirty  factories  In  Hartford  and 
vicinity.  It  aims  to  supply  work  to  applicants  in  its 
allied  factories,  and  requires  all  applying  to  fill  out  a 
comprehensive  application  card.  When  the  laborer 
obtains  work,  a  card  indicating  the  place  of  employ- 
ment, wages,  etc.,  Is  filed  in  the  employment  office.  As 
soon  as  the  employee  leaves,  the  manufacturer  is  re- 
quired to  fill  out  a  blank,  carefully  stating  the  cause 
of  the  worker's  withdrawal  from  the  factory,  his  abil- 
ity, wages,  and  other  facts  of  value  to  the  bureau. 
Many  union  men  claim  that  a  workman  dismissed  for 
organizing  the  workers  would  look  in  vain  for  work 
in  any  of  the  other  factories.  This  association,  they 
contend.  Is  connected  with  others  In  New  Haven, 
Springfield,  Worcester,  Boston,  New  York  and  other 
cities,  while  all  are  associated  with  the  National  Asso- 
ciation of  Manufacturers.  A  somewhat  similar  bu- 
reau of  the  National  Metal  Trades'  Association,  with 
branches  In  a  dozen  large  cities,  Is  described  in  the 
World^s  Work  of  December,  1905. 

Yet,  in  spite  of  this  evidence  of  blacklisting,  em- 
ployers will  almost  invariably  state,  when  approached, 
that  they  are  absolutely  opposed  to  Its  use.  Thus, 
Mr.  James  W.  Van  Cleave,  then  president  of  the  Na- 
tional Association  for  Manufacturers,  stated: 

"When  I  condemn  the  boycott,  I  condemn  It  in  all 
its  forms  and  ramifications,  including  the  blacklist, 
which  is  only  the  boycott  in  another  form.  Whether 
used  by  the  labor  organizations  to  hurt  employers  or 
by  employers'  associations  to  hurt  workers,  the  boy- 

^Alba  M.  Edwards,  Ph.D.,  American  Economic  Assoc,  igoy,  3rd 
series,  v.  8,  pp.  578  et  seq. 


48  BOYCOTTS 

cott  and  the  blacklist  are  un-American,  Immoral  and 
vicious,  and  have  no  place  In  a  country  like  ours."^ 

Again  he  said : 

*'In  every  instance  in  which  I  have  heard  the  black- 
list mentioned  by  the  members  of  the  National  Asso- 
ciation of  Manufacturers,  or  by  employers  of  any  sort 
or  in  any  place,  It  was  condemned  as  a  cowardly  op- 
pression of  the  weak  by  the  strong.  For  this  practice 
no  defense,  no  apology,  has  ever  been  offered,  or  even 
can  be  offered  which  is  worth  a  moment's  considera- 
tion. To  this  statement  there  are  no  exceptions,  no 
reservations,  no  limitations.  The  question  of  the  black- 
list has  only  one  side,  and  that  Is  base."  Mr.  Van 
Cleave  then  referred  to  the  boycott  as  equally  base,  and 
continued:  "The  manufacturer  or  employer  who  uses 
or  sanctions  the  use  of  a  blackhst  has  no  right  of  com- 
plaint against  the  labor  organization  which  employs 
the  boycott  as  a  method,  since  both  are  beyond  the 
pale  of  the  moral  and  the  civil  law." 

By  November,  191 1,  the  blacklist  had  been  pro- 
hibited specifically  in  some  twenty-three  states  of  the 
union,  and  also  by  federal  statute.  It  was  furthermore 
condemned  under  conspiracy  acts  In  most  of  the  other 
states.  The  states  specifically  prohibiting  it  were: 
Connecticut  in  New  England;  Alabama,  Florida,  North 
Carolina  and  Virginia  in  the  Southern  Atlantic  States; 
Arkansas,  Mississippi,  Oklahoma  and  Texas  in  the 
South  Central;  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Minne- 
sota, Missouri,  North  Dakota  and  Wisconsin  in  the 
North  Central  States  and  Colorado,  Montana,  Ne- 
vada, Oregon,  Utah  and  Washington  In  the  Far  West. 

The  court  decisions  on  the  subject  are  referred  to 
elsewhere. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  blacklist  Is  well-nigh 
universally  condemned,  both  by  public  opinion  and  by 
law,  but  that.  In  spite  of  this  prohibition.  It  has  fre- 
^  American  Industries,  February  15,  1908,  p.  19. 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       49 

qucntly  been  used  In  the  past,  and  Is  being  employed 
at  present  In  many  Industries,  with  telling  effect.  It 
is  doubtless  true,  as  many  union  men  argue,  that  the 
only  permanent  corrective  Is  to  be  found  in  a  thor- 
oughly organized  labor  movement. 

The  Trade  Boycott 

While  employers  of  labor  have,  from  the  very  be- 
ginning, protested  vigorously  against  the  use  of  that 
"un-American  weapon,"  the  boycott,  when  practiced 
by  working  men,  they  have  repeatedly  resorted  to  this 
same  weapon  In  their  competition  with  other  firms. 
Among  the  most  frequent  offenders  have  been  the  retail 
lumber  dealers.  During  the  past  few  years  these  deal- 
ers have  felt  the  pressure  of  the  large  lumber  yards 
and  money  order  businesses  which  sold  directly  to  the 
consumer,  and  have  combined  to  prevent  business  an- 
nihilation. Some  of  these  combinations  have  formed 
agreements  with  associations  of  manufacturers,  and 
together  they  have  used  their  purchasing  power  to  in- 
jure the  business  of  "irresponsible,  unscrupulous,  un- 
ethical manufacturers,  wholesalers  and  dealers,"  those, 
in  other  words,  who  did  not  observe  the  rules  of  the 
association.  The  bitter  experiences  of  those  dealers 
who  were  not  "In  the  ring"  have  often  been  described.^ 

Many  times  have  these  associations  been  haled  Into 
court  for  misconduct.  As  far  back  as  1893,  for  in- 
stance, Mr.  Hollls,  an  official  of  the  Northwestern 
Lumbermen's  Association,  at  that  time  comprising  one- 
half  of  the  lumber  dealers  In  Iowa,  Minnesota,  Ne- 
braska and  the  Dakotas,  was  charged  with  boycotting 
retail  dealers  not  belonging  to  the  association. 

The  method  followed  was  to  compel  those  of  its 
members  who  disobeyed  its  rules  and  sold  lumber  to 
non-members,  to  pay  ten  per  cent,  of  the  amount  of 

^Hearst's  Magazine,  April,  1912. 


so  BOYCOTTS 

its  sales  to  such  members  among  the  retail  dealers  who 
resided  in  the  same  town  with  the  non-member  cus- 
tomers. This  practice,  however,  was  not  deemed  il- 
legal.^ 

Similar  lumber  organizations  in  Texas,  Indiana,^ 
Louisiana  and  Mississippi^  have  been  declared  guilty 
of  unlawfully  boycotting  competitors.  A  Pennsyl- 
vania association,  however,  accused  of  attacking  a 
dealer  who  conceded  certain  demands  to  strikers,  was 
exonerated  from  wrongdoing.* 

Drug  associations,  wholesale  and  retail,  have  been 
conspicuous  boycotters.  Some  years  ago,  the  Atlanta 
Retail  Drug  Association  established  a  rule  that  none 
of  its  members  would  purchase  anything  from  a  sales- 
man who  disposed  of  his  goods  to  drug  stores  outside 
of  the  group.^  The  National  Wholesale  Drug  Asso- 
ciation also  at  one  time  indulged  in  a  similar  practice.^ 

Other  frequent  experimenters  in  the  gentle  art  of 
boycotting  have  been  the  newspapers, ''^  news  agencies,^ 
printers,^  plumbers, ^^  granite  manufacturers,  produce 
exchanges,  coal  associations,  liquor  associations,  real 
estate,  ice,  coal  and  other  companies,  and,  in  fact, 
combinations  dealing  with  almost  every  conceivable 
commodity. 

Trade  boycotts,  then,  have  played  quite  an  impor- 
tant role  in  modern  business  competition.  While  they 
have  frequently  led  to  the  oppression  of  small  con- 
cerns, they  have  at  other  times  been  the  salvation  of 

/Bohn   Manufacturing  Co.   v.   Hollis    (Minn.,   1893). 

^Jackson  v.   Stanfield    (Ind.,   1894). 

'Grenada  Lumber  Co.  v.  Mississippi  (U,  S.  Supreme  Ct.,  1910). 

*Cote  V.  Murphy  (Penn.,  1894). 

■"^  Brown  v.  Jacobs  Pharmacy  Co.  (Georgia,  1902). 

®  Park  &  Sons  v.  National  Wholesale  Drug  Assoc.  (N.  Y.  Appel- 
late Div.,  1898). 

^Aikens  v.  Wisconsin  (U.  S.  Supreme  Ct.,  1905). 

*  Collins  V.  American  News  Co.  (N.  Y.  Appellate  Div.,  1902)  and 
Dunlap's  Cable  News  Co.  v.  Stone  (N.  Y.  Supreme  Ct.,  1902). 

"Employing  Printers'  Club  v.  Doctor  Blosser  Co.   (Ga.,  1902). 

"Macauley  v.  Tierney  (R.  I.,  1895). 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       51 

such  small  industries,  in  their  fight  against  the  other- 
wise overpowering  competition  of  huge  aggregations 
of  capital. 

The  Political  Boycott 

Political  boycotts,  involving  the  refusal  to  vote  for 
those  officials  disapproved  by  labor,  are  somewhat 
common  in  America.  In  a  few  instances  boycotts  in 
labor  disputes  have  been  carried  over  into  the  political 
field,  and  in  at  least  one  case,  if  we  are  to  credit  its 
promoters,  a  boycott  decided  a  presidential  election  and 
resulted  in  the  defeat  of  James  G.  Blaine. 

The  dispute  in  question  began  in  1877,  in  the  office 
of  the  New  York  Tribune,^  in  an  argument  over  the 
ever  recurring  subjects  of  wages  and  the  closed  shop. 
The  compositors,  members  of  the  Typographical 
Union,  who  were  instigators  of  the  dispute,  gained 
a  temporary  victory  in  1883,  but  were  afterwards 
discharged.  Then  followed  a  country-wide  boycott. 
The  unionists  published  a  weekly,  The  Boycotter,  and 
in  June,  1884,  sent  delegates  to  the  National  Repub- 
lican Convention,  asking  that  the  Tribune,  then  the 
mouthpiece  of  the  Republican  party,  be  repudiated. 
The  delegates  were  treated  with  scant  courtesy,  and 
their  demands  were  rejected.  The  union,  thereupon, 
at  its  session  of  August  3rd,  resolved  that,  until  a 
written  repudiation  was  made  of  the  attitude  of  this 
newspaper,  their  members  would  boycott  the  ^'Tribune 
and  James  G.  Blaine,"  who  was  then  running  as  a  can- 
didate for  president  of  the  United  States.  When  the 
votes  were  counted  in  November,  it  was  found  that 
the  Democratic  electors  were  chosen  by  the  citizens  of 
the  state  by  a  small  margin  (1,149  votes),  and  the 
printers  declared  that  it  was  mainly  due  to  their  ef- 
forts that  the  Democratic  nominee,  Grover  Cleveland, 
1  Annual  Report  of  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  191 1,  pp.  284  e/  seg. 


52  BOYCOTTS 

was  enabled  to  gain  the  presidency.  The  boycott  of 
the  Tribune  was  not  finally  called  off  until  June  5, 
1892,  when  it  was  announced  that  a  union  foreman 
was  to  be  placed  in  charge  of  the  composing  room, 
with  full  power,  and  it  was  recommended  that  a  com- 
mittee be  sent  to  the  national  convention  of  that  year 
announcing  the  agreement.  The  political  nature  of  the 
boycott  throughout  these  years  was  among  the  ele- 
ments which  led  to  the  final  victory  of  the  union. 

Another  such  boycott  was  threatened  in  the  nineties 
on  the  Pacific  Coast,  when  the  Multinomah  Typo- 
graphical Union,  in  furtherance  of  their  fight  against 
the  Longshore  Printing  Co.  in  Oregon,  warned  the  city 
council  of  their  displeasure  at  the  polls,  should  it  vote 
to  give  the  city  printing  to  Longshore.^ 

Among  other  instances  which  may  be  classed  under 
the  general  heading  of  political  boycotts,  although 
slightly  different  in  their  nature  from  the  foregoing, 
are  the  boycotting  of  British  goods  proposed  by  Mrs. 
Martha  Wentworth  Suffren,  vice-chairman  of  the 
Woman  Suffrage  Party,  to  avenge  the  imprisonment 
of  Mrs.  Pankhurst;^  the  boycotting  of  the  Seattle 
Times  in  the  summer  of  19 12  by  the  Socialists  of  Se- 
attle, because  of  its  contemptuous  treatment  of  the  So- 
cialist movement;^  and  the  boycotting  of  a  South  Salem 
(New  York)  postmaster  appointed  against  the  wish 
of  the  majority  of  the  citizens  of  that  community.* 
In  the  last  named  instance  the  citizens  journeyed  to 
another  town  to  post  their  letters  rather  than  deposit 
them  in  the  regular  office. 

The  organized  effort  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  and  the  National  Association  of  Manufac- 
turers, cited  elsewhere,  to  elect  representatives  favor- 

*  Longshore  Printing  Co.  v.  Howell    (Oregon,  1894). 

^  New  York  Times,  May  28,  1912. 

'Appeal  to  Reason,  June  6,  1912. 

*New  York  Report,  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor,  1885,  p.  361. 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       53 

able  to  them,  may  also  be  included  in  the  list  of  politi- 
cal boycotts. 

The  International  Boycott 

Of  late,  some  curious  examples  of  international  boy- 
cotts, in  which  one  nation  has  boycotted  the  commod- 
ities of  another,  have  appeared.  Chief  among  these 
have  been  the  refusal  of  the  Chinese  to  purchase  cer- 
tain American  goods,  and  of  the  Persians  and  Hindoos 
to  handle  British  commodities. 

The  Chinese  boycott  occurred  in  1905,  as  a  pro- 
test against  the  supposed  attempt  of  the  United  States 
to  force  the  signing  of  another  exclusion  treaty.  Pro- 
test meetings  in  Shanghai  and  elsewhere  were  held, 
parades  of  Chinese  girls  were  organized,  cartoons, 
characterizing  the  Americans  as  tyrants,  were  widely 
distributed,  and  everywhere  the  populace  were  admon- 
ished not  to  deal  in  American  products.  The  agita- 
tion had  a  temporary  effect  in  a  few  provinces  in  de- 
creasing the  sales  of  American  goods,  but  died  out 
within  a  few  months.^ 

In  the  Persian  boycott,  angered  at  the  Shah  for  giv- 
ing the  tobacco  monopoly  to  an  English  company  for 
$75,000  annually,  the  inhabitants  in  many  parts  of 
Persia  rose  in  rebellion  and  had  to  be  put  down  by 
armed  force.  Some  of  the  nobility  stopped  smoking, 
followed  by  the  women  of  the  harem.  Meetings  in 
the  mosques  and  bazars  were  stopped,  merchants  closed 
their  stores,  trade  fell  to  almost  nothing,  and  the  gov- 
ernment was  finally  compelled  to  renounce  its  conces- 
sion.2  In  India,  the  Swadeshi  movement,  organized  to 
give  preference  to  goods  made  in  India  over  those 
from  Great  Britain,  has  gained  considerable  headway.^ 

'Hearings,  United  States  Immigration  Com.,  1906,  on  "Boycott 
of  American  Manufactured  Goods  by  the  People  of  China.^ 

^Pavlovitch,  "Le  Boycott  Economique  et  la  Greve  Generate  en 
Perse,"  Le  Mouvement  Socialist e,  v.  28,  pp.  16-24,  Jujy,  I9i0- 

'The  Swadeshi  Movement,  a  Symposium,  published  by  U  A. 
Natesant  &  Co.,  Esplanade,  Madras. 


54  BOYCOTTS 

As  a  result  of  the  denunciation  of  the  Russian  Treaty 
in  America  in  19 12,  in  the  province  of  Kursk,  Russia, 
the  assembly  met  and  resolved  that  the  Russian  farm- 
ers boycott  all  American  agricultural  implements.  Cop- 
ies of  the  resolutions  were  sent  to  all  of  the  other  prov- 
inces, urging  that  similar  action  be  taken. ^ 

Rumor  had  it  in  June,  191 2,  that  rich  Americans, 
fond  of  hunting  in  the  Scottish  Highlands,  were  being 
boycotted  by  a  semi-political  organization  called  the 
"Young  Scots,''  who  contended  that  such  sport  was 
taking  away  much  of  the  cultivatable  land.  Some  of 
the  American  families  were  reported  to  have  given  up 
their  houses  on  account  of  the  consequent  difficulty  of 
securing  provisions  locally.^  A  boycott  of  the  Panama 
Fair  by  the  Germans,  in  case  the  "stand-pat"  policy  on 
the  tariff  was  continued,  was  also  proposed  prior  to  the 
19 1 2  presidential  election.^ 

During  the  Ettor-Giovannitti  trial  in  Lawrence,  in 
the  same  year,  a  strong  organization  of  Swedish  work- 
ing men  requested  the  International  Trade  Union  Sec- 
retariat to  "take  steps  toward  the  organization  of  a 
world-wide  boycott  of  all  American  goods,"  in  case 
of  the  conviction  of  these  two  labor  leaders.  Many 
other  instances  may  be  cited. 

Other  Forms  of  Boycotts 

The  farmers  of  the  country  have  also  at  times  urged 
this  method  of  dealing  with  their  supposed  enemies. 

"Resolved,  That  farmers  buy  no  implements  of 
those  manufacturers  or  their  agents  who  have  entered 
into  any  conspiracy  agreeing  not  to  sell  their  imple- 
ments to  farmers'  associations,"  runs  a  resolution  at 
the  Second  Bloomington,  111.,  Convention,  1873.*    The 

^  New  York  Times,  May  i,  1912. 

^Brooklyn  Eagle,  dispatch  from  Edinburgh,  June  14,  1912. 

^New  York  Times,  September  12,  1912. 

*  Documentary  History  Am.  Indust.  Soc.,  v.  10,  p.  52. 


MODERN  FORMS  OF  BOYCOTTS       ^^ 

agreement  of  farmers  in  North  Carolina  to  refuse  to 
purchase  jute  bagging  so  long  as  the  makers  charged 
such  high  prices,  is  instanced  in  a  North  CaroHna  boy- 
cott case.^ 

The  boycott  by  the  abolitionists  against  slave-made 
goods  before  the  Civil  War  and  by  the  prohibitionists 
against  liquor  and  the  liquor  dealers,  are  among  the 
many  other  instances  which  may  be  gathered  from 
American  history. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  working  class,  in  its  fight^ 
for  better  and  more  humane  conditions,  is  not  the  only 
element  in  society  which  uses  its  purchasing  and  seUing 
power  to  force  other  groups  to  grant  concessions.  The 
general  public  resorts  to  the  boycott  to  force  a  reduc- 
tion of  monopoly  prices;  the  class  conscious  capitalist 
uses  it  to  silence  the  organs  of  public  opinion;  the  em- 
ployer ruthlessly  employs  it  to  crush  the  union  spirit 
among  his  workmen;  the  merchant  wields  it  to  cut  the 
market  from  beneath  unmanageable  competitors;  the 
citizen  uses  it  to  place  his  friends  in  office;  the  peoples 
of  one  country  practice  it  to  gain  concessions  from 
other  countries  or  to  prevent  aggressions;  labor,  busi- 
ness, social,  ethical,  religious,  political,  educational 
associations  fashion  it  to  their  ends — some  for  the  weal 
of  society,  some  to  its  detriment.  We  will  next  see 
more  specifically  what  service  it  has  rendered  to  labor. 
*  State  V.  Van  Pelt,  N.  C,  1901. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE   NATURE   OF    BOYCOTTS    EMPLOYED    BY   LABOR 

Reasons  for  the  Boycott 

While  boycotting  has  invaded  well  nigh  every  field 
of  endeavor,  its  most  important  battleground  is,  per- 
haps, that  of  labor.  A  description  of  the  use  of  this 
weapon  by  the  labor  forces  will  occupy  the  remaining 
pages  of  this  book.  Let  us  first  inquire  into  some  of 
the  reasons  for  the  boycott's  popularity. 

Labor  has  a  two-fold  relationship  with  the. employ- 
ing class.  It  supplies  that  class  with  the  labor  power 
necessary  to  produce  commodities.  It  also  furnishes, 
to  a  considerable  extent,  a  market  for  the  commodi- 
ties produced.  In  both  relationships  it  can  so  conduct 
itself  as  vitally  to  affect  the  profits. 

In  aiming  to  better  the  condition  of  labor  by  means 
of  the  strike,  the  worker  uses  his  power  of  persuasion 
or  coercion,  only  in  his  position  as  producer.  The  strike 
cuts  off  the  supply  of  labor  from  the  employer,  and 
thus  deprives  him,  at  least  temporarily,  of  his  power 
to  produce.  If  labor  is  thoroughly  organized,  if  every 
man  in  a  certain  trade  or  industry  stands  staunchly 
with  his  fellow  in  a  labor  struggle;  if  the  army  of  the 
unemployed  refuses  to  "scab,"  and  if,  finally,  the  work- 
er's economic  power  to  resist  proves  as  great  as  that 
of  the  employer,  the  mere  cessation  of  work,  if  con- 
tinued long  enough,  will  probably  be  suflicient  to  bring 
the  employing  class  to  terms.     A  settlement  of  some 

56 


THE  NATURE  OF  BOYCOTTS  57 

sort,  or  an  absolute  stoppage  of  production,  is  the 
alternative. 

The  unionists  of  the  eighties  in  the  United  States 
discovered  that  these  conditions  but  rarely  existed. 
They  found  that  in  many  instances  a  threat  to  strike 
failed  greatly  to  disturb  the  employer,  believing,  as 
he  did,  that  his  one  problem,  in  case  of  such  a  strike, 
was  to  obtain  other  workers,  and  that  the  condition  of 
the  labor  market  made  that  problem  a  comparatively 
simple  one.  Following  the  hiring  of  others,  business 
would  proceed  as  formerly. 

The  workers  therefore  came  to  realize  that  they 
had  utterly  neglected  to  use  their  power  as  consumers, 
in  their  struggles  for  Improved  conditions. 

*'If  we  can  tell  the  unfair  employer  that  he  may 
fill  our  places  with  other  workmen,  but  that  he  will 
be  unable  to  sell  the  goods  his  new  employees  pro- 
duce; If  we  can  assure  him  that,  unless  he  concedes 
our  demands,  labor  and  its  friends  will  leave  his  goods 
unsought,  and  that  It  will  take  many  a  day  to  regain 
his  former  patrons,  our  argument  will  gain  double 
weight.  Should  we  not  then  unite  to  cease  all  deal- 
ings with  'unfair'  firms,  and  thus  cut  off,  as  far  as 
possible,  not  only  their  labor  force  but  their  market  as 
well?" 

Along  such  lines  were  they  beginning  to  reason  In 
the  early  eighties,  about  the  time  that  the  word  "boy- 
cott," accompanied  with  tales  of  the  effective  ostracism 
of  the  English  landlord  class,  was  borne  In  upon  them. 
It  was  a  period  In  America  of  widespread  labor  trou- 
bles, waged  for  the  most  part  by  the  then  prosperous 
Knights  of  Labor,  an  organization  especially  adapted 
to  appeal  effectively  to  large  masses  of  friendly  con- 
sumers. The  weapon  was  naturally  seized  upon  with 
vigor. 

The  New  York  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor  gives 


58  BOYCOTTS 

some  reasons  for  the  acceptance  of  this  method  of  in- 
dustrial warfare.^ 

*Tt  seems  likely  that  if  a  body  of  workmen  feel  that 
a  strike  is  the  only  way  of  enforcing  what  they  con- 
sider just  and  reasonable  claims,  they  will  try  to  make 
that  strike  valid,  and  to  bring  it  to  a  crisis  by  adopting 
any  other  legal  method  which  will  further  embarrass 
the  employer  and  bring  him  to  a  decision.  The  strike 
is  negation.  The  boycott  is  action.  It  is  not  here  a 
question  of  morality  or  even  of  legality,  but  simply  of 
logical  sequence.  Most  trades  have  been  content  to 
strike,  putting  themselves  to  loss  of  wages,  the  great- 
est deprivation  of  a  poor  man  known;  in  many  cases, 
however,  the  men  have  argued  that  they  have  a  right 
to  go  further,  and  to  compel  a  settlement  of  the  issues. 
Hence  the  boycott.  .  .  .  If  the  employer  can  dismiss 
his  dissatisfied  work  people  and  replace  them,  the  bur- 
den falls  on  the  shoulders  of  labor  alone,  and  the  em- 
ployer may  profit  by  the  change.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  workman  resorts  to  boycott  and  so  intercepts  the 
employer's  profit,  the  employer  is  brought  to  a  quicker 
sense  of  the  expediency  of  friendly  settlement^'  (Ital- 
ics are  author's.) 

Another  reason  for  the  use  of  this  weapon  was  its 
comparative  inexpensiveness  :^ 

^'Boycotting  possesses  this  one  merit  over  striking — 
it  is  less  costly.  As  formerly  conducted,  strikes  were 
very  expensive,  and,  in  the  long  run,  unsuccessful.  .  .  . 
Now,  as  soon  as  a  strike  is  declared  hopeless,  meas- 
ured by  the  old  methods  of  attack,  a  boycott  is  de- 
clared. In  some  instances  the  men  return  to  work  and, 
as  far  as  surface  indications  go,  the  war  with  the  firm 
is  at  an  end.  Not  so  with  the  boycott.  Its  work  is 
quietly  but  persistently  directed  against  the  sale  of  the 
goods  of  the  firm.    The  union  itself  is  put  to  little  ex- 

^  Report  of  New  York  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor,   1886,  pp. 

713,  714- 
''New  York  Report  of  Statistics  of  Labor,  p.  334. 


THE  NATURE  OF  BOYCOTTS  59 

pense.  Beyond  printing  the  boycotting  circulars  and 
the  expense  attending  their  distribution  and  the  per- 
sonal expense  of  committees  appointed  to  visit  their 
organizations  throughout  the  State,  the  outlay  Is  very 
small.  ^  Where  the  union  or  organization  Is  associated 
or  affiliated  with  a  national  one,  even  this  last  Item  of 
expense  is  saved.  If  the  men  conducting  the  boycott 
are  Industrious,  It  will  sooner  or  later  give  evidence 
that  the  sale  of  the  boycotted  article  Is  alected.  If  it 
is  an  article  which  enters  into  daily  consumption  and 
is  of  such  a  character  that  It  can  be  made  the  subject 
of  ordinary  conversation,  it  will  soon  force  the  em- 
ployer to  expend  money  in  advertising  it,  in  order  to 
counteract  the  silent  influence  of  the  boycott.'* 

The  broader  social  reason  given  for  adopting  this 
weapon  appeared  in  the  lUinois  reports  :^ 

"The  theoretic  justification  of  the  boycott,  as  ex- 
pounded by  those  who  claim  for  it  a  legitimate  func- 
tion In  industrial  differences,  may  be  briefly  stated  as 
follows :  Behind  all  economic  laws  of  trade,  behind  the 
considerations  of  supply  and  demand,  Is  that  which 
creates  the  demand,  that  which  gives  force  to  all  Indus- 
try, and  vivifies  all  commerce — the  social  need.  The 
requirements  of  society  are  various,  intricate  and  in- 
terwoven. It  needs  food,  raiment,  dwelling  places, 
means  of  rapid  communication  and  travel;  besides 
these,  and  more  than  any  of  these,  except  food  and 
raiment.  It  needs  moral  uprightness,  business  and  social 
integrity,  education  and  moral  worth.  All  Industry  is 
carried  on  because  of  some  social  need,  because  the 
social  need  has  created  a  demand  for  the  article  pro- 
duced by  such  industry;  but  when  persons  supplying 
such  demand  violate  some  other  social  law  to  protect 
which  is  of  far  more  importance  than  the  gratification 
of  this  artificial  demand,  then  the  demand  ceases,  and 
the  offending  party  is  crushed.  Society,  in  a  broad 
sense,  is  the  employer  not  only  of  all  labor  but  of  all 
'  Illinois  Report  of  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor,  1886,  pp.  446, 
447. 


6o  BOYCOTTS 

capital,  and  of  all  who  produce  or  distribute  the  fruits 
of  labor  and  capital.  When  any  of  its  employees  vio- 
late moral  or  social  laws,  the  maintenance  of  which 
is  of  more  importance  than  the  services  of  the  offend- 
ers, society  may  discharge  such  employees,  that  is,  re- 
fuse to  deal  with  them  or  use  their  products — in  short, 
boycott  them.'* 

Having  considered.  In  broad  outline,  the  reason  for 
the  appearance  of  the  boycott  in  the  labor  world,  let 
us  analyze  more  closely  its  character  and*  forms. 

Definitions 

A  boycott  in  labor  disputes  may  be  defined  as  a  com- 
bination of  workmen  to  cease  all  dealings  with  an- 
other^ an  employer  or,  at  times,  a  fellow  worker,  and, 
usually,  also  to  induce  or  coerce  third  parties  to  cease 
such  dealings,  the  purpose  being  to  persuade  or  force 
such  others  to  comply  with  some  demand  or  to  punish 
him  for  non-compliance  in  the  past.^ 

Boycotts  may  be  divided  Into  negative  and  positive 
boycotts.  The  primary  purpose  of  negative  boycotts  Is 
to  secure  for  "fair"  firms  the  patronage  of  labor  and 
Its  friends.  Indirectly,  they  divert  trade  from  "unfair" 
employers.  In  the  prosecution  of  this  form  of  boy- 
cotts, a  union  label  Is  usually  placed  on  goods  as  a  guar- 
antee to  the  trade  unionists  and  to  the  public  generally 
that  the  goods  are  produced  under  conditions  favorable 
to  the  unions.  "White"  or  "fair"  lists  which  announce 
to  the  public  those  who  have  complied  with  trade  union 
conditions  are  also  printed  and  distributed. 

The  Union  Label 

The  union  label  which  Is  used,  as  has  been  stated, 
in  enforcing  negative  boycotts.  Is  an  emblem  placed  on 

*See  Seligman,  Principles  of  Economics,  p.  440;  Adams  and  Sum- 
ner, Labor  Problems,  p.  197. 


THE  NATURE  OF  BOYCOTTS  6i 

commodities  produced  under  union  conditions.  This 
design  is  also  printed  on  shop  cards  to  indicate  that 
the  stores  in  which  they  are  distributed  observe  union 
rules,  and  is,  as  well,  worn  on  the  coat  lapels  of  union 
men. 

The  label  was  first  Instituted  by  the  Cigar  Makers' 
Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast,  in  1875,  ^nd  was 
placed  on  all  cigars  made  by  white  labor,  in  San  Fran- 
cisco and  other  cities  of  the  coast,  to  indicate  that  the 
cigars  were  not  made  by  Chinese  labor,  then  so  preva- 
lent in  California.  The  label,  in  fact,  was  the  outcome 
of  this  competition  between  Chinese  and  American 
workmen.^ 

In  1879  the  St.  Louis  Cigar  Makers'  Union  adopted 
the  label,  and  in  1880  the  Cigar  Makers'  International 
Union  of  America,  in  Chicago,  placed  a  blue  label  on 
cigars  made  by  its  members.  This  indicated  to  labor 
that  the  cigars  ^'had  been  made  by  a  first-class  work- 
man, a  member  of  the  Cigar  Makers'  Union,  an  or- 
ganization opposed  to  the  inferior  rat  shop,  coolie, 
prison  or  filthy  tenement  house  workmanship."  ^ 

In  the  second  period  of  the  label,  from  1 8 80  to  1 890, 
several  trades,  chief  among  them  the  Hatters  and 
Can  Makers,  adopted  the  label  to  combat  the  foreign 
low  paid  labor,  and  the  public  was  appealed  to  to  pur- 
chase union  made  goods,  and  thus  place  their  stamp  of 
condemnation  on  tenement,  sweat  shop  and  prison 
labor.  The  Knights  of  Labor  were  particularly  active 
during  this  period,  and,  besides  the  Hatters  and  Cigar 
Makers,  the  German  Typographia  (1885),  Typo- 
graphical Union  (1886),  Garment  Workers  (1886), 
Coopers  (1886),  Boot  and  Shoe  Workers  (1887), 
Bakers  (1886),  Molders  (1887)  and  Tailors  (1886), 
adopted  the  label.^     It  was  the  controversy  over  the 

*  Spedden,  The  Trades  Union  Label,  p.  10. 
^  Ibid.,  pp.  14,  15. 
^Ibid.,  p.  18. 


62  BOYCOTTS 

label  of  the  cigar  makers  which  finally  led  to  the  breach 
between  the  Knights  of  Labor  and  the  International 
Cigar  Makers'  Union  and  the  edict  from  the  Knights 
to  the  effect  that  all  of  its  members  must  sever  their 
connections  with  the  Cigar  Makers'  Union. ^ 

Since  1890  the  use  of  the  label  has  grown  steadily, 
and  the  unions  have  appealed  primarily  to  organized 
labor,  rather  than  to  the  public  at  large,  to  purchase 
union  made  goods.  In  1909  the  Union  Label  Trades 
Department  was  established  by  the  Ameiican  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  to  encourage  the  use  of  the  label  through- 
out the  country.  This  department  reported  in  191 2^ 
that  there  were  sixty-seven  international  unions  then 
using  the  union  label,  thirty-eight  of  which  were  affili- 
ated with  the  Union  Label  Department,  and  that  fifty 
local  departments  for  the  spread  of  the  label  were  in 
existence  in  the  industrial  centers  of  the  country.  The 
department,  during  the  previous  year,  conducted  an 
aggressive  campaign  for  advertising  the  label.  It  dis- 
tributed over  150,000  pieces  of  literature,  including 
55,000  directories  containing,  in  its  ninety-three  pages, 
the  names  of  firms  permitted  the  use  of  this  label 
emblem,  and  brought  the  claims  of  these  ''fair"  firms 
before  the  trade  unionists  in  many  of  the  official  jour- 
nals of  the  international  union.  It  also  operated  mov- 
ing picture  shows  and  entertainments  illustrating  the 
various  labels,  and  sent  a  number  of  organizers  into 
the  field.  Some  idea  of  the  use  of  the  labels  may  be 
gleaned  from  the  following  figures  from  a  few  trades 
unions: 

Name  of  Union  No.  Labels  Used  1912 

Bakery  and  Confectionery  Workers 555,439,000 

United    Garment   Workers 45,430,000 

United  Brewery   Workers 44,239,850 

*  Spedden,  The  Trades  Union  Label,  p.  19. 

^  Convention   Proceedings,   American  Federation  of  Labor,   1912, 
pp.  23-25  and  Zi2-2,ZA- 


THE  NATURE  OF  BOYCOTTS  63 

Name  of  Union  No.  Labels  Used  1912 

Cigar  Makers'  International  Union 28  600  000 

American  Federation  of  Labor 9,423  000 

United  Cloth  Hat  and  Cap  Workers 5,305,000 

Journeymen  Tailors'  Union e2Q  681 

Travelers'  Goods  and  Leather  Novelty  Workers 47,000 

This  was  a  large  Increase  over  the  figures  of  the 
previous  year.  The  Woman's  International  Union 
Label  Leagues,  recently  organized,  are  assisting  ma- 
terially In  the  label  campaigns. 

The  unionists  often  Impose  penalties  on  their  mem- 
bers, to  Induce  them  to  use  the  label.  The  Boot  and 
Shoe  Workers*  Union  fine  any  member  purchasing 
shoes  not  containing  the  union  stamp,  and  the  Hatters' 
Union  recently  passed  a  resolution  exacting  $5  from 
any  man  purchasing  a  non-union  cigar. 

In  several  unions  no  delegate  can  be  seated  at  the 
convention  unless  he  can  show  at  least  three  labels  on 
his  various  garments.^ 

The  effectiveness  of  the  use  of  the  label,  according 
to  Dr.  Spedden,  depends  on  whether  the  goods  are 
purchased  chiefly  by  unionists  or  other  classes  In  the 
community;  whether  they  are  usually  purchased  by 
men  or  by  women;  whether  they  are  of  such  a  char- 
acter that  other  unionists  can  easily  ascertain  if  their 
fellow  member  is  buying  union  or  non-union  goods,  and 
whether  the  purchases  are  made  frequently  or  at  long 
and  Irregular  intervals. 

The  Positive  Boycott 

The  positive  boycott  generally  takes  the  form  of 
the  ''unfair"  or  the  'We  Don't  Patronize''  list  and 
the  boycott  proper. 

The  unfair  list  is  a  list  of  those  firms  which,  from 

'Proceedings    of    the    Fourth    Convention    (1911)    Union    Label 
Trades  Department,  pp.  19,  20. 


64  BOYCOTTS 

the  standpoint  of  the  trade  unionists,  are  unfair  to 
labor.  The  list  is  published  for  the  most  part  in  trade 
union  periodicals  under  the  caption,  "Unfair"  or  "We 
Don't  Patronize,"  or  posted  at  trade  union  headquar- 
ters. The  publication  of  this  list  in  the  papers  of  one 
trade  often  leads  through  "courtesy"  to  its  publication 
in  other  trade  journals.  Unionists  are  supposed  to 
cease  all  dealings  with  those  whose  names  thus  appear. 
Since  February,  1908,  following  the  Danbury  Hatters 
and  Buck's  Stove  decisions,  the  "We  Don't  Patron- 
ize" list  has  been  of  little  importance. 

The  boycott  proper  may  be  divided  into  the 
primary,  the  secondary  and  the  compound  boycott. 
The  appellation,  Jertiary  boycott,  is  also  frequently 
applied  to  the  most  indirect  forms.  A  primary  boy- 
cott may  be  defined  as  a  simple  combination  of  per- 
sons to  suspend  dealings  with  a  party  obnoxious  to 
them,  involving  no  attempt  to  persuade  or  coerce  third 
parties  to  suspend  dealings  also.^  Thus,  if  workmen 
in  one  industry  go  on  a  strike  against  a  firm  and  agree 
to  refuse  to  purchase  any  product  from  that  firm,  with- 
out endeavoring  to  persuade  others  to  do  likewise,  a 
primary  boycott  will  be  the  result.  This  form,  how- 
ever, is  rarely  used  in  labor  disputes  as  it  is  compara- 
tively ineffective. 

A  secondary  boycott  may  be  defined  as  a  combina- 
tion of  workmen  to  induce  or  persuade  third  parties 
to  cease  business  relations  with  those  against  whom 
there  Is  a  grievance.  A  compound  boycott  appears 
when  the  workmen  use  coercive  and  intimidating  meas- 
ures, as  distinguished  from  mere  persuasive  measures 
in  preventing  third  parties  from  dealing  with  the  boy- 
cotted firms. 

Compound  boycotts  are  of  two  kinds — those  in- 
volving threats  of  pecuniary  injury  to  the  parties  ap- 
^  Adams  and  Sumner,  Labor  Problems,  p.  197. 


ifr 


THE  NATURE  OF  BOYCOTTS  65 

proached,  and  those  Involving  threats  of  actual  physi- 
cal force  and  violence. 

The  primary,  secondary  and  compound  forms  of  the 
positive  boycott  may  be  directed  against  a  fellow  work- 
man or  against  an  employer  of  labor.  If  this  weapon 
is  employed  against  another  working  man  it  is  some- 
times called  a  labor  boycott.  This  form  generally 
appears  when  a  laborer  refuses  to  join  a  labor  or- 
ganization and  the  members  of  such  an  organization 
endeavor  to  Induce  or  coerce  the  employer,  through 
threats  of  strike,  to  discharge  the  non-unionist  unless 
he  allies  himself  with  them.  At  times  efforts  are  made 
to  prevent  storekeepers  from  selling  to  such  "scabs." 
This  form  of  boycott,  connected,^  as  it  is,  so  intimately 
with  the  closed  shop,  will  not  be  dealt  with  to  any  great 
extent  in  this  book.^ 

There  are  three  important  points  of  attack  against 
a  boycotted  employer  in  the  use  of  the  secondary  and 
compound  boycott.  An  endeavor  is  often  made  to 
boycott  him  through  inducing  or  coercing  his  em-^ 
ployees  to  quit  working  for  him.  One  of  the  weapons 
employed  in  carrying  out  this  form  is  picketing. -- 

Secondly,  the  workmen  often  attack  the  source  of 
supply,  and  try  to  induce  or  coerce  wholesalers,  job- 
bers, manufacturers  or  mining  companies,  as  the  case 
may  be,  to  refuse  to  sell  any  further  supplies  to  the 
employer  under  the  ban.  This  latter  method  is  used 
most  extensively  in  the  building  trades  where  the  prod- 
ucts disposed  of  are  not  finally  sold  to  the  general  pub- 
lic, but  are  used  in  the  construction  of  buildings. 

The  third  and  generally  the  most  important  method 
of  Injury  is  the  inducing  or  coercing  of  customers  to 
withdraw  their  patronage  from  the  obnoxious  concern. 

The  arguments  used  to  obtain  the  cooperation  of 
these  third  parties  may  be  merely  persuasive  or  coer- 
cive In  their  nature.     The  employee  may  be  urged 

*  See  Stockton,  The  Closed  Shop  in  American  Trade  Unions. 


66  BOYCOTTS 

simply  in  the  Interest  of  his  class  to  quit  his  job  In  order 
to  prevent  the  employer  from  winning  the  dispute.  He 
may  be  threatened  with  violence  or  he  may  be  incon- 
venienced In  the  matter  of  securing  a  boarding  place, 
or  obtaining  provisions,  on  account  of  the  threat  of 
the  workers  to  refuse  to  patronize  those  harboring  or 
selling  to  him. 

In  the  building  trades  and  other  industries  the  sup- 
plier of  material  may  be  Induced  through  his  sense  of 
justice  to  refuse  to  sell  further  supplies  {o  the  firm  op- 
posed by  organized  labor.  He  may  be  confronted,  and 
often  is  confronted,  on  the  other  hand,  with  a  threat 
that  the  members  of  organized  labor  in  other  building 
trades  will  refuse  to  work  on  material  supplied  by  him, 
so  long  as  he  continues  to  deal  with  the  ''unfair"  em- 
ployer. If  this  threat  does  not  prove  an  inducement 
the  workers  may  then  appeal  to  the  building  contract- 
ors to  cease  purchasing  supplies  from  this  third  party, 
and  threaten  the  contractors  with  a  strike  of  all  the 
workers  on  the  building  if  they  continue  their  dealings. 
By  this  method  the  contractors  often  bring  sufficient 
pressure  on  the  manufacturer  to  induce  him  to  refuse 
to  supply  the  obnoxious  employer  with  further  goods, 
and  the  employer  In  turn  is  often  thus  induced  to  con- 
cede the  demands  of  the  workers. 

If  the  firm  boycotted  supplies  wholesalers  and  re- 
tailers with  goods,  the  latter  are  approached  by  the 
boycotters,  and  are  persuaded  or  coerced,  covertly  or 
otherwise,  to  cease  purchasing  from  the  concern  under 
the  ban,  through  fear  that  they,  in  turn,  will  lose  the 
patronage  of  the  friends  of  labor.  Instances  may  be 
cited  where  the  boycotters  have  extorted  money  from 
these  dealers  for  continuing  their  patronage.  When 
it  becomes  the  turn  of  organized  labor  to  cease  patron- 
izing retail  dealers,  or  to  cease  working  on  "unfair" 
jobs,  the  union  either  resorts  again  to  persuasion  or  to 


THE  NATURE  OF  BOYCOTTS  67 

coercion — generally  through  fines.    These  latter,  how- 
ever, are  imposed  by  the  workers  on  themselves. 

A  tertiary  boycott  again  may  be  instituted  against 
those  citizens  who  continue  to  purchase  from  stores 
selling  ''unfair"  supplies.  In  these  cases  the  second 
form  of  compound  boycott,  where  actual  violence  or 
threats  of  violence  are  used,  is  comparatively  rare. 

After  a  boycott  is  declared,  it  is  promoted  primarily  j 
by  public  addresses,  personal  conversation,  the  distribu-  ( 
tion  of  circulars  and  letters,  the  sending  of  delegates,  ( 
the  publication  of  "unfair"  lists  and  by  articles  in  trade) 
union  papers. 

Circulars  setting  forth  the  claims  of  the  unionv 
**sinned  against"  are  sent  to  all  of  those  unions  which^ 
seem  likely  to  be  in  a  position  to  aid.  When  the  prod- 
uct sold  has  a  national  patronage,  the  unions  through- 
out the  country  are  frequently  circularized.  Special 
letters  are  sent  to  many  of  the  unions.  Circulars  are 
also  distributed  among  the  public  generally,  if  the  con- 
cern has  a  local  patronage,  and  if  the  goods  sold  are 
purchased  by  large  numbers  of  the  laboring  class. 
These  circulars  generally  recite  the  grievances  com- 
plained of,  and  call  upon  the  friends  of  labor  to  cease 
dealing  with  the  company  named. 

The  trade  unionists  are  asked  to  give  funds  to  aid 
in  the  boycott,  to  send  their  delegates  to  dealers  in  the 
boycotted  articles,  and  to  write  letters  of  protest  to  the 
unfair  establishments.  Delegates  are  frequently  sent 
around  the  country  by  the  union  conducting  the  boy- 
cott. It  is  the  business  of  these  to  visit  dealers  and  to 
present  their  claims  before  the  trade  unionists  of  the 
various  cities,  urging  cooperation. 

Until  1908  the  ''We  Don't  Patronize"  list,  contain- 
ing the  names  of  firms  which  had  not  conceded  labor's 
demands,  was  published  in  the  American  Federationist 
and  other  labor  papers.  As  a  feeble  substitute  at  the 
present  time,  the  labor  periodicals  now  often  call  at- 


68  BOYCOTTS 

tention  to  and  recite  the  facts  of  union  struggle,  leaving 
It  to  organized  labor  to  "do  the  right  thing." 

Members  are  urged  to  discuss  the  matter  with  their 
friends,  and  various  devices,  such  as  "sandwich  men" 
and  transparencies,  are  used  to  draw  attention  to  the 
fight.  The  central  labor  unions  of  each  city  are  often 
effective  agents  to  further  the  interests  of  boycotters. 

The  ingenuity  of  the  unionist  is  frequently  put  to  a 
test  In  his  endeavor  to  discover  those  who  deal  with  the 
boycotted  concern.  Many  are  the  complaints  of  the 
manufacturers  that  their  goods  are  followed  to  the 
trains,  and  the  names  of  the  patrons  secured  before 
shipment.  One  firm  complains  that  its  salesman  was 
followed  across  the  continent  to  the  Pacific  Coast  by  a 
delegate  from  the  trade  union,  and  that  its  dealers  were 
visited  and  induced  to  cancel  their  orders.  In  the 
case  of  the  newspapers,  the  paper's  advertisers  are 
often  seen,  and  urged  to  discontinue  advertising  in  the 
"scab"  paper,  under  penalty  of  the  boycott. 

It  would  be  Impossible  to  describe  all  of  the  other 
devices  used  in  connection  with  labor  boycotts,  but  the 
foregoing  are  believed  to  be  the  most  important. 


CHAPTER   IV 

EARLY   BOYCOTTS   IN   LABOR  DISPUTES 

Hatters^   and  Printers*  Boycotts 

What  appears  to  be  the  first  boycott  In  the  coun- 
try connected  entirely  with  a  labor  dispute,  was  organ- 
ized by  the  Baltimore  hatters  In  1833.^ 

According  to  the  newspaper  accounts  of  that  day,  all 
the  master  hatters  of  Baltimore,  with  the  exception  of 
seven,  had  reduced  the  wages  of  the  journeymen 
hatters  about  25%,  and  labor  throughout  the  city  was 
justly  indignant.  The  Journeymen  Hatters  had  Issued 
an  appeal  to  the  other  mechanics  of  the  town  and  to 
the  citizens  generally,  asking  them  to  have  no  more 
dealings  with  the  combination  of  employers,  and  to 
patronize  only  the  loyal  masters.  Following  this,  the 
Mechanics  ''of  all  denominations,"  on  July  24,  1833, 
held  a  meeting,  indorsed  the  appeal,  and  urged  the 
boycotting  of  the  employers.  This  meeting  was  In 
turn  followed  by  one  composed  of  the  citizens  gener- 
ally. This  agitation  brought  forth  a  vigorous  reply 
from  the  master  hatters,  who  defended  their  treatment 
of  labor  by  the  declaration  that  nine  persons  In  one 
establishment  earned  the  munificent  wage  of  $10.50 
a  week,  and  that  the  average  wage  was  more  than  $8. 

The  Mechanics'  Resolution  viewed  the  25%  wage 
reduction  as  "replete  with  evil  and  injustice,  and  sub- 
versive of  the  dearest  principles  for  which  our  fore- 

^  Documentary  History  Am.  Ind.  Soc,  v.  6,  pp.  100-107. 
69 


BOYCOTTS 

fatofirs  bled,"  expressed  its  hearty  approval  of  the 
boycott,  and  resolved  to  support  only  those  employers 
who  sternly  resisted  "the  odious  proposition  of  the 
combination." 

About  the  same  time  the  printers  of  New  York  State 
were  active  in  the  promulgation  of  unfair  or  "rat" 
lists,  lists  of  employers  and  workmen  who  refused  to 
abide  by  the  rules  of  the  Typographical  Union  No.  6.^ 
On  September  17,  1831,  the  union  resolved  "that,  as 
soon  as  a  correct  list  of  *rats*  now  employed  in  the 
city  can  be  obtained,  said  list  be  printed  and  circu- 
lated in  every  city  and  country  in  the  Union."  On 
October  26,  1833,  a  publication  of  a  list  conducting 
non-union  shops  was  determined  upon  at  the  behest  of 
a  fair  employer,  and  three  years  later  it  was  resolved 
"that  the  'Rat'  Committee  be  instructed  to  ascertain  in 
the  Union  and  Transcript  the  names  of  all  employers 
who  do,  as  well  as  those  who  do  not,  conform  to  the 
prices."  The  publication  of  these  lists  continued  with- 
out a  set-back  until  April,  1 840,  when  court  proceed- 
ings were  instituted  by  one  who  alleged  that  he  had 
been  libeled  by  the  "Rat"  Committee.  The  result  of 
the  suit  is  not  known. 

Periods  of  Boycotting 

Shortly  after  the  invention  of  the  word  "boycott" 
by  Father  O'Malley  in  1880,  the  boycott  became  a  pop- 
ular and  effective  weapon  in  the  hands  of  organized 
labor  in  the  United  States.  It  was  in  1886  that  the 
Knights  of  Labor  came  to  the  zenith  of  its  power, 
with  a  membership  of  some  600,000,-  and  that  the 
Federation  of  Organized  Trades  and  Labor  Unions, 
afterward  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  was 
formed  (1881). 

*  Annual  Report,  New  York  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  191 1,  pp. 
143   et  seq. 
^  Adams  and  Sumner,  Lofcor  Problems,  pp.  219  et  seq. 


BOYCOTTS  IN  LABOR  DISPUTES       71 

The  first  real  wave  of  boycotting  swept  over  the 
country  In  1885.  In  that  year  a  careful  investigation 
of  its  use  was  published  by  Bradstreet's.  This  appears 
to  be  the  only  attempt  that  has  yet  been  made  to  de- 
scribe the  use  of  this  labor  device  In  the  various  parts 
of  the  United  States.  The  labor  commissioners  of 
Illinois  and  Wisconsin  made  mention  of  its  employ- 
ment In  their  report  for  1886,  and  the  Bureau  of  Sta- 
tistics of  Labor  of  New  York  published  annually  an 
account  of  Its  practice  from  1885  to  1892. 

Because  of  the  application  of  the  law  to  suppress 
various  forms  of  the  boycott,  and  resulting  changes 
In  the  method  of  warfare  of  labor  unions,  boycotts 
came  to  be  regarded  by  the  labor  commissioners  as  of 
too  little  consequence  to  report.  It  thus  becomes  more 
and  more  difficult  to  obtain  adequate  reports  of  their 
use  since  about  1890.  In  many  jurisdictions  the  com- 
missioners proceeded  on  the  theory  that,  prohibited 
by  law  as  many  forms  were,  the  boycott  no  longer 
existed,  and,  consequently.  It  was  not  possible  to  re- 
port that  which  was  not  in  existence.  The  last  official 
report,  therefore,  available  in  this  country  is  the 
N.  Y.  Report  of  1892. 

The  second  period  of  boycotting  was  that  in  which 
the  railroad  employees  of  the  country  were  engaged 
In  the  early  nineties,  particularly  during  the  American 
Railway  Strike  of  1894. 

The  national  boycotts  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  the  prominent  use  by  them  of  the  ''We  Don't 
Patronize''  list,  culminating  in  the  great  Buck's  Stove 
and  Danbury  Hatters'  boycotts,  might  be  said  to  con- 
stitute the  third  period  of  boycotting  in  labor  disputes. 

With  the  exception  of  the  boycott  of  the  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World,  in  conjunction  with  the  West- 
ern Federation  of  Miners  In  Goldfield,  Nevada,  there 
have  been  no  conspicuous  boycotts  by  that  organiza- 
tion.    The  probable  reason  for  this  is  that  the  I.  W. 


72  BOYCOTTS 

W.  have  thus  far  organized  chiefly  in  the  basic  indus- 
tries, and  the  members  are  not  generally  the  consumers 
of  products  fashioned  in  the  plants  organized  by  them. 
The  organization,  however,  believes  in  using  the  boy- 
cott wherever  it  can  be  employed  effectively. 

Boycotting  in  the  Eighties 

In  1885  Bradstreet^s  gathered  the  first  and  only  boy- 
cotting figures  of  national  scope.^  *Tts  (^he  boycott's) 
growth  in  the  hands  of  developing  trade  unions  and 
organizations  in  the  United  States  has  been  prodigious 
within  the  two  years  past,"  comments  that  journal. 
Referring  to  the  trades  which  most  prominently  used 
this  weapon,  Bradstreefs  summarizes : 

*^It  is  noticeable  that  the  typographical  unions  have 
resorted  to  the  use  of  the  boycott  in  excess  of  all  others. 
Cigar  manufacturers  and  dealers  have  been  boycotted 
with  the  next  greatest  frequency  and  with  the  largest 
proportion  of  success  noted  in  any  line,  about  42%  of 
the  boycotts  being  claimed  as  accomplishing  the  desired 
end.  Hat  manufacturers  and  dealers  have  been  boy- 
cotted with  the  next  greatest  frequency,  yet  the  success 
thus  far  obtained  is  less  striking,  except  in  Individual 
instances.  Boycotts  against  carpet  makers  and  dealers 
in  'scab'  nails  made  in  Ohio  valley  have  been  actively 
waged.  Out  of  the  119  boycotts  in  the  six  lines  enu- 
merated, 29  have  been  successful  and  16  have  failed, 
while  85  are  still  on."  ^ 

A  further  analysis  of  the  figures  given,  shows  that 
of  the  196  boycotts,  130,  or  over  66%^  were  divided 
among  the  six  trades:  the  newspaper  (45)  and  cigar 
(26)  Industries,  the  hat  manufacturers  and  dealers 
(22)  and  the  clothing  (14),  the  carpet  (13)  and  the 
nail  industries  (10).    Of  the  eight  ranking  first  in  the 

*  Bradstreet's,  1885,  v.  12,  pp.  394-397     (Dec.  19,  1885). 
'  Italics  are  the  author's. 


BOYCOTTS  IN  LABOR  DISPUTES       73 

number  of  boycotts  waged,  four  of  the  industries  af- 
fected were  engaged  in  the  production  of  wearing  ap- 
parel. 

Surveying  the  entire  number  of  boycotts,  exclusive 
of  those  against  Chinese  labor,  it  is  seen  that  those  in- 
dustries engaged  in  the  making  of  clothing  led  in  num- 
ber of  boycotts  ( 5  5 ) ,  the  newspaper  business  came  sec- 
ond (45)»  and  food  supplies  and  furniture,  third  and 
fourth  (37  and  20),  respectively.  Then  followed  iron 
and  steel  (10),  transportation  (7),  paper  and  print- 
ing (7),  metal  (5),  personal  service  (4),  post  office 
work  (2),  amusement  (2),  and  laundry  supplies  (2). 

If  we  analyze  the  relative  success  of  boycotts  waged 
In  the  seven  industries  credited  with  the  largest  number 
of  boycotting  cases,  we  will  find  that  the  percentage  of 
successful  boycotts  to  the  total  number  actually  ended 
was  highest  in  transportation  (85.7%),  next  highest 
In  the  clothing  business  (77.8%),  followed  in  turn  by 
the  food  (69.5%),  paper  and  printing  (66.7%),  fur- 
niture (60%)  and  newspaper  {s^'5%)  industries.  We 
will  observe  that  transportation  leads  (85.7%)  with 
food  next  (43.3%),  in  the  percentage  of  boycotts 
brought  to  a  successful  conclusion  to  those  actually 
undertaken. 

Considering  the  first  eight  items  in  the  table  on 
p.  74,  it  will  be  noted  that  all  of  the  boycotts  in  the 
hat  and  clothing  industries — using  the  latter  in  Its  nar- 
rower sense — of  whose  outcome  the  labor  bureau 
had  knowledge,  were  in  favor  of  the  boycotters,  giv- 
ing these  trades  100%  of  victories  won  over  defeats 
recorded.  If,  however,  we  are  in  quest  of  the  highest 
percentage  of  victories  reported  among  the  total  num- 
ber of  boycotts  waged,  we  will  discover  that  the  cigar 
makers'  industry  takes  the  lead  with  42.3%*  and  the 
newspaper  and  hat  Industries  follow,  with  the  clothing 
industry  far  in  the  rear.  Success  is  claimed  for  all 
boycotts  instituted  against  excursion  and  other  steamer 


74 


BOYCOTTS 


companies,    theaters,    publishers,    postmasters,    starch 
makers,  baking  powder  companies,  laundry  soap  man- 


Table  compiled  from  Bradstreet's,  December  19,  1885,  p.  394. 


Industries 


Newspaper 

Hat  Manufacturers 

Cigar  Manufacturers 

Carpet 

Clothing  (Suits  of) 

Nail  and  Mills 

Drygoods 

Boot  &  Shoe  Mfrs 

Stove  Makers 

Flour  Mills 

Hotels  and  Pub.  H 

Breweries 

Printers 

Bakers 

Excursion  Steamers 

Silver    Factories     (Watch 

Cases) 

Tailors 

Theater 

Publishers 

Steam  Railway 

Steamship  Co 

Sp.  Beverage 

Postmaster 

Starchmaker 

Baking  Powder  Maker.  .  . 

Washing  Soap 

Can  Maker 

Stereotype  Plates 

Pianos  and  Organs 

Broom  Manufacturers. . . . 

Cooper  Workers 

Box  Manufacturers 

Knit  Goods  Mfrs 

Chinese  Employers 

Excluding  Chinese 


45 
22 
26 
13 
14 
10 

7 
7 
5 
3 
4 
4 
3 
2 

5 

3 
4 
2 

2 


237 
196 


3 
I 

3 
3 
o 
I 

5 

o 
2 
2 
2 
o 
I 
o 

2 
I 
I 
I 
I 

o 
o 
o 

I 
o 
o 

40 


99 
59 


24 
23 


•2  • 


^^5 


114 
114 


56.5 

100.  o 

68.8 

0.0 
100 

o 

o 

o 
100 
100.  o 

lOO.O 

750 

0.0 

50.0 

100.  o 

0.0 
100.  o 
100.  o 

lOO.O 

0.0 
100.  o 

0.0 
100.  o 
100.  o 

lOO.O 

100. o 
1 00.0 

0.0 

0.0 

o 
100, 

o. 

o. 
97- 


80.5 

72.0 


S>5 


28, 
18 
42 
o. 

7- 
o. 
o. 
o. 
60.0 

33-3 
75  o 
75  o 
0.0 
50.0 

lOO.O 

0.0 

500 

100. o 

lOO.O 

0.0 

lOO.O 

0.0 

lOO.O 

100.  o 

100.  o 

100.  o 

100. o 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

lOO.O 

0.0 
0.0 

97.6 


41.8 
30.0 


BOYCOTTS  IN  LABOR  DISPUTES       75 

ufacturers,  can  makers  and  cooper  workers.  As  but 
one  or  two  boycotts  were  employed  in  a  number  of 
these  last  named  industries,  however,  the  results  are 
not  especially  significant. 

The  greatest  success  of  any  boycotts  waged  during 
this  period  was  found  in  those  conducted  in  the  West- 
ern States  against  the  Chinese.  Forty  out  of  the  forty- 
one  instances  were  reported  as  entirely  successful. 
These  boycotts,  however,  often  involved  more  than 
mere  boycotting.  They  were  race  wars.  In  Port- 
land, Oregon,  they  were  organized  by  an  Anti-Coolie 
Law  and  Order  Association,  with  a  membership  of 
2,000,  formed  in  seven  encampments.  The  agitation 
led  to  the  discharge  of  400  Chinese  in  40  firms.  In 
Squeak  Valley,  on  Puget  Sound,  seven  or  eight  coolies 
were  reported  to  have  been  killed.  In  Tacoma,  Wash- 
ington, more  than  700  Chinese  were  escorted  from 
the  city  by  prominent  citizens.  In  Idaho  and  Oregon 
the  workers  threatened  to  hang  any  cooUe  who  came 
their  way.  None  came.  In  Montana  these  Orientals 
were  forced  by  the  Knights  of  Labor  to  leave  their 
localities.  The  success  is  therefore  not  to  be  won- 
dered at. 

In  summary  it  is  found  that,  excluding  the  boycotts 
against  the  Chinese,  72%,  or  nearly  three-fourths  of 
the  boycotts  actually  decided^  were  declared  successful. 
Thirty  per  cent,  of  all  those  undertaken  were  brought 
to  a  successful  conclusion  before  the  compilation  of 
Bradstreet's  report.  In  view  of  the  large  percentage 
of  boycotts  among  those  concluded,  it  might  be  con- 
jectured with  some  degree  of  safety  that  about  one- 
half  of  the  boycotts  begun  finally  succeeded.  The 
effectiveness  of  the  boycotts  in  certain  trades  is  thus 
evidenced. 

What  is  the  relative  success  of  strikes  and  boycotts? 
It  has  been  estimated  that,  of  those  strikes  ordered  by 
labor  unions  in  1885,  62.42%  succeeded,  10.58%  sue- 


76  BOYCOTTS 

ceeded  partly,  and  27%  failed;  while,  of  those  not  or- 
dered by  labor  unions,  27.05%  succeeded,  6.6%  suc- 
ceeded partly,  and  66.35%  failed.^  These  percentages 
take  no  account  of  strikes  pending,  or  those  whose 
results  were  not  reported.  The  percentage  of  suc- 
cessful boycotts,  to  the  total  number  reported  termi- 
nated, is  thus  greater  than  that  of  wholly  successful 
strikes  ordered  by  labor  unions,  and  greater  than  that 
of  wholly  successful  strikes  ordered  by  unorganized 
workers,  but  not  so  large  as  the  percentage  of  wholly 
and  partly  successful  strikes  conducted  by  unions. 

It  is  of  interest  also  to  note,  in  connection  with  the 
boycotts  entered  into  in  1889,  that  157  of  the  196 
boycotts,  or  80%  of  the  entire  number,  were  organized 
in  industries  which  supplied  the  common  necessities  of 
life — clothing,  food,  furniture,  and  reading  matter. 

About  one-fourth  of  the  boycotts  engaged  in  this 
year  were  conducted  in  New  York  State.  The  New 
England  States  contented  themselves  for  the  most  part 
with  assisting  in  the  success  of  those  boycotts  originat- 
ing in  other  regions. 

One  of  the  most  conspicuous  boycotts  in  the  Middle 
Atlantic  States  was  that  waged  against  J.  Kaufman's 
clothing  and  furniture  store  of  Philadelphia.  So  bit- 
ter did  the  antagonism  become  against  this  concern, 
that  several  employees  of  the  street  car  lines  of  that 
city  struck  because  the  cars  carried  its  ''ad."  A  few 
cases  were  instanced  in  New  Jersey  and  Maryland. 
In  the  South  union  men  in  Wheeling,  West  Virginia, 
refused  to  patronize  a  barber  shop  in  which  "scabs" 
were  shaved.  Comparatively  infrequent  was  the  use 
of  this  weapon  in  the  national  capital,  in  Virginia  and 
Georgia.  A  number  of  boycotts  were  evidenced  in 
the  Western  States — Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan, 
Missouri,  Nebraska,  Utah,  California,  and  Iowa — 
principally  in  the  last  named  state,  while  instances  were 
^Statistical  Abstract,  191 1,  p.  266. 


BOYCOTTS  IN  LABOR  DISPUTES       77 

cited  in  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  Texas  and 
Arkansas,  of  the  South  Central  Division.  In  Galves- 
ton, Texas,  the  telegraph  operators  were  charged  with 
refusing  to  forward  messages  to  the  ships,  until  a  strike 
in  that  city  had  been  settled. 

Most  of  the  boycotts  conducted  were  instituted  by 
the  Knights  of  Labor.  The  Knights  had  great  faith 
in  the  power  of  the  consumer  to  assist  labor  in  its 
struggles  and,  at  times,  even  credited  the  boycott  with 
being  a  more  effective  instrument  than  the  strike  in 
bettering  the  conditions  of  labor.  However,  many  of 
their  leaders,  ostensibly,  at  least,  were  opposed  to  boy- 
cotting, and  placed  most  emphasis  on  political  and  co- 
operative action.  Grand  Master  Powderly,  for  in- 
stance, was  quoted  in  1886  as  saying:  "I  hate  the 
word  boycott,  and  have  ordered  the  local  executive 
boards  and  secretaries  to  simply  tear  or  burn  up  the 
flood  of  boycott  notices  and  circulars  that  have  been 
pouring  in.     It  is  a  bad  practice."^ 

Illinois  and  Wisconsin  Boycotts 

The  following  year  an  investigation  of  this  new 
labor  device  was  made  in  the  state  of  lUinois.^  Some 
fifty  boycotts  were  observed,  twenty-five  of  which  were 
waged  by  the  Knights  of  Labor,  and  twenty-five  by  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor. 

The  most  striking  features  of  the  boycotting  cam- 
paigns were  the  percentage  of  successful  boycotts  and 
the  somewhat  intimate  relation  shown  between  the 
causes  and  the  success  of  boycotts. 

The  number  engaged  in  the  trade  unions*  boycotts 
was  estimated  at  4,259;  in  those  of  the  Knights  of 
Labor,  at  5,927,  total  10,186.    In  13  cases  the  results 

*  Fourth  Annual  Report,  Illinois  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1886, 
pp.  446  et  seq. 

'Ibid.,  1886,  pp.  446  et  seq. 


78  BOYCOTTS 

were  not  stated,  and  in  6  no  results  had  been  reached 
at  the  time  of  the  report.  Of  the  31  where  the  out- 
come had  been  ascertained,  14,  or  45.2%,  were  said  to 
have  been  completely  successful,  16  were  partly  suc- 
cessful, and  only  one  was  reported  as  a  complete  fail- 
ure. It  is  thus  seen  that  g6.8%  of  the  boycotts  whose 
results  were  ascertained  were  successful  in  whole  or  in 
part. 

"Judging  from  the  foregoing  returns,"  runs  the  re- 
port, "the  proportion  of  boycotts  which  h^ve  met  with 
some  degree  of  success  is  greater  than  is  usually  found 
in  a  corresponding  number  of  strikes,  and  of  course  the 
cost  to  the  aggressors  in  this  form  of  boycott  is  very 
much  less  than  it  would  be  in  conducting  strikes.'* 

The  outcome  of  the  boycotts  in  this  state  was  in- 
fluenced considerably  by  their  underlying  motives. 
Eight  boycotts  were  waged  against  dealers  in  prison- 
made  goods,  and  in  every  case  these  were  wholly  suc- 
cessful. Of  the  1,193  union  men  conducting  two  boy- 
cotts against  the  reduction  of  wages  and  the  employ- 
ment of  non-union  workers,  1,183,  or  over  99%,  were 
completely  victorious.  One  boycott  was  also  cited 
against  merchants'  high  prices,  in  which  42  were  en- 
gaged. This  also  was  successful,  as  was  the  one  par- 
ticipated in  by  30  workers  for  the  recognition  of  the 
union.  Most  of  those  contending  for  a  shorter  day, 
on  the  other  hand,  won  only  part  of  the  demands, 
while  no  success  at  the  time  of  the  report  was  credited 
to  the  250  laborers  who  conducted  a  boycott  against 
the  employers  refusing  to  hire  union  men.  Commtnt- 
ing  on  the  want  of  success  of  the  last  named  endeavors, 
the  commissioner  states:  "Boycotts  based  upon  the 
employment  of  non-union  men  rarely  succeed,  because 
Society  is  not  prepared  to  assist  either  in  driving  men 
into  unions  or  out  of  employment."  ^ 

*  Fourth    Annual    Report,    Illinois    Bureau    of    Labor    Statistics, 
1886,  p.  447. 


BOYCOTTS  IN  LABOR  DISPUTES       79 

In  Illinois,  as  in  the  country  at  large,  the  newspapers 
were  the  chief  objects  of  attack,  fourteen  out  of  the 
fifty  boycotts  having  been  directed  against  them.  Nine- 
tenths  of  the  participants  in  these  boycotts  claimed  to 
be  partly  or  wholly  successful,  although  less  than  one- 
seventh  were  completely  so.  Coal  companies,  nail 
mills  and  Chinese  laundries  also  came  in  for  a  con- 
siderable share  of  attention  at  the  hands  of  the  boy- 
cotters. 

While  the  boycotts  were  scattered  throughout  the 
state,  12,  or  nearly  one-fourth,  were  organized  in  Chi- 
cago. Over  7,000  persons,  about  70%  of  the  total 
number,  were  connected  with  these  Chicago  contests. 
One-half  were  centered  in  four  cities. 

Of  the  trade  union  boycotts,  about  one-third  (8) 
were  conducted  by  the  cigar  makers;  4  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  typographical  union;  3  by  the  glass  blow- 
ers; 2  by  the  tailors,  and  i  each  by  the  bakers,  butch- 
ers, coopers,  iron  molders,  nail  mill  men,  and  plumb- 
ers. 

In  striking  contrast  with  the  boycotts  of  the  trade 
unionists  were  those  engaged  in  by  the  Knights  of 
Labor.  Here  an  effort  was  made  to  unite  all  of  the 
Knights  In  town — ^bricklayers,  carpenters,  blacksmiths, 
cigar  makers,  engineers,  plasterers,  miners,  shoe 
makers,  etc. — in  injuring  the  trade  of  the  obnoxious 
capitalist.  In  was  perhaps  for  this  reason  that  the 
Knights  appeared  the  more  successful  in  their  cam- 
paigns. While  in  five  instances  the  trade  unions  report 
complete  victory  and  in  ten  cases,  a  partial  success,  the 
Knights  claim  to  have  won  all  demands  in  nine 
Instances,  and  part  of  their  demands  in  six.  From 
the  foregoing  figures  thp  boycott  is  seen  to  have 
justified  itself  in  this  state  as  an  effective  labor 
weapon. 

The  only  remaining  state  where  an  Investigation  was 


8o  BOYCOTTS 

made  with  the  exception  of  New  York  was  Wisconsin.^ 
Little,  however,  can  be  gleaned  from  this  report,  as  it 
was  devoted  chiefly  to  denunciation  rather  than  to  de- 
scription. "In  Wisconsin,"  the  commissioner  declares, 
"the  boycott  has  been  an  active  instrument  either  of 
revenge  or  of  an  attempt  to  compel  a  given  person  to 
do  something  against  his  will." 

For  the  third  time  the  prominence  of  the  newspaper 
boycotts  may  be  noted.  Three  were  waged,  two  suc- 
cessfully. The  proprietor  of  the  "Quiet*House"  was 
tabooed  during  an  attack  on  the  Milwaukee  Republican, 
because  he  continued  to  subscribe  for  that  paper,  and 
union  men  were  admonished  not  to  eat  or  drink  in  his 
restaurant.  Advertisers  of  the  Evening  Wisconsin 
were  effectively  boycotted  during  the  fight  against  that 
organ,  and  for  one  year  the  printers  published  a  Print- 
ers'  Bulletin,  with  which  to  oppose  this  newspaper. 

In  their  fight  against  Dueber  watches,  the  boycot- 
ters  so  overcrowded  an  auction  room  that  no  further 
goods  could  be  sold.  For  his  activity  in  the  Kosciusko 
guards,  a  well  known  lawyer  and  supervisor  of  Bay 
View  found  his  business  ruined.  As  elsewhere,  a  num- 
ber of  industries  producing  cigars,  bread,  flour,  beer, 
shoes,  trunks,  etc.,  were  affected  by  this  weapon.  Sev- 
eral arrests  were  made.  The  percentage  of  successful 
boycotts  is  not  given.  The  alacrity  shown  by  the  em- 
ployers in  starting  court  proceedings,  indicates,  how- 
ever, that  this  weapon  was  here  attended,  as  elsewhere, 
with  considerable  success. 

It  is  thus  seen  that,  although  boycotts  in  labor  con- 
flicts were  occasionally  resorted  to  in  the  first  half  of 
the  last  century,  they  were  not  used  extensively  until 
the  eighties.  The  glimpses  which  we  have  of  their 
workings  during  this  period  indicate  that  their  use, 

1  Report  of  Wisconsin  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1885- 1886,  pp. 
372  et  seq. 


BOYCOTTS  IN  LABOR  DISPUTES       8i 

generally  speaking,  was  productive  of  good  results  to 
labor.  The  biggest  fact  which  stands  out  as  a  result 
of  the  examination  of  the  Bradstreefs,  Illinois  and 
Wisconsin  reports  Is,  perhaps,  that  boycotts  may  be 
waged  most  frequently  and  effectively  In  connection 
with  common  necessities  and  inexpensive  luxuries  pur- 
chased regularly  by  the  mass  of  workers,  such,  for 
instance,  as  newspapers,  cigars,  hats  and  certain  other 
articles  of  clothing,  food  and  furniture. 

The  character  of  the  grievances  resulting  In  the  use 
of  the  boycott,  and  the  power  wielded  by  labor  as 
consumers  of  the  product  boycotted  are  also  factors  in 
the  success  attending  the  use  of  this  device. 

The  most  illuminating  investigations  were  those  con- 
ducted In  New  York  State,  which  will  now  be  con- 
sidered. 


CHAPTER    V 

BOYCOTTS   IN   NEW   YORK   STATE 
1885-1892  • 

The  one  state  which  stood  foremost  as  an  experiment 
ground  for  the  boycotts  in  the  eighties  was  New  York. 
Fortunately,  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor  in  this 
state  made  a  careful  analysis  of  the  situation  here 
between  1885  and  1892.  The  facts  which  may  be 
gleaned  from  these  reports  are  of  special  significance. 

Although  the  year  1880  witnessed  a  vigorous  boy- 
cotting campaign  against  a  starch  concern,  the  first 
real  outburst  occurred  in  the  year  1885,  when  some 
59  cases  were  reported.  Among  the  singular  features 
of  this  year's  fights  were  the  endeavors  of  some  of 
the  workers  to  compel  the  boycotted  firn.\s  to  pay  the 
expenses  incurred  in  boycotting;^  the  alleged  active 
encouragement  of  a  cigar  boycott,  by  rival  manufac- 
turers,^  and  the  threatened  boycotting  at  the  polls  of 
public  men  who  continued  to  patronize  the  Fifth  Ave- 
nue Hotel.^ 

The  following  year  boycotting  became  so  popular 
that  the  number  of  instances  reported  almost  trebled, 
leaping  from  59  to  163.  This  increase  was  due,  ac- 
cording to  the  Commissioner  of  Labor,  to  the  great 
wave  of  labor  disturbances  which  swept  over  the  coun- 

1  New  York  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor,  1885,  p.  339. 
I  Ibid., 'p.  359. 
*Ibid.,  p.  358. 

82 


BOYCOTTS  IN  NEW  YORK  STATE      83 

try,  obtaining  its  initial  impulse  from  the  strike  of  the 
surface  railroad  employees  in  New  York  City.^ 

In  the  year  1886  the  first  of  the  legal  prosecutions 
was  noted  in  connection  with  the  employment  of  this 
weapon.  Over  100  labor  unionists  in  New  York  City 
alone  were  indicted  at  this  time  for  conspiracy,  coer- 
cion and  extortion,  and  sentenced  to  the  state  peni- 
tentiary. 

The  same  year  jealousies  between  rival  labor  or- 
ganizations complicated  the  use  of  this  labor  device 
in  the  cigar  industry.  One  manufacturer  reported 
that  he  had  been  boycotted  by  the  International  Cigar 
Makers'  Union  No.  6,  and  injured  thereby  to  the  ex- 
tent of  nearly  $10,000,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  all  of 
his  actions  had  been  sustained  ''by  the  entire  Execu- 
tive Board  of  Knights  of  Labor  from  Mr.  Powderly 
down.'*  The  bureau  was  unable  to  determine  the  exact 
cause  of  this  conflict. 

The  advantages  that  sometimes  accrue  to  firms  os- 
tracised by  labor,  when  they  gain  the  sympathy  of  the 
general  public,  were  suggested  in  the  boycotting  of 
Mrs.  Gray's  bakery  in  New  York  City.  In  this  dis- 
pute, the  employees,  in  their  fight  for  a  union  shop, 
followed  customers  to  their  homes  and  urged  them  to 
cease  purchasing  bread.  At  the  same  time  they  placed 
a  peripatetic  sandwich  man  in  front  of  the  store,  bear- 
ing huge  placards  containing  the  legend,  ''Boycott 
Gray's  Bakery."  The  newspapers  took  up  the  matter 
and  aroused  widespread  sympathy  for  Mrs.  Gray. 
"Prominent  citizens  sent  checks,  and  hundreds  of  per- 
sons in  and  out  of  the  city  forwarded  encouraging  let- 
ters, enclosing,  in  most  instances,  substantial  checks 
and  orders  for  bread,  etc.,  to  be  sent  to  charitable  in- 
stitutions. The  business  of  the  bakery  quadrupled,  and 
the  demand  for  comestibles  soon  exceeded  the  resources 
of  the  establishment."  A  number  of  boycotters  were 
^Ibid.,  1886,  pp.  744,  745. 


84  BOYCOTTS 

finally  arrested  and  the  unionists  acknowledged  them- 
selves defeated.^ 

As  a  result  of  the  large  numbers  of  arrests  in  con- 
nection with  the  boycott  during  1886,  the  following 
year  witnessed  a  considerable  diminution  in  the  ag- 
gressiveness with  which  this  weapon  was  used.  Boy- 
cotts in  the  building  trades  were,  perhaps,  the  feature 
of  the  year,  and  held  up,  it  was  alleged,  the  construc- 
tion of  no  less  than  $2,000,000  worth  of  real  estate. 
For  the  most  part,  however,  it  was  declared  that  the 
year's  boycotts  caused  only  inconvenience  and  slight 
loss  of  business.  The  brewers'  boycotts  of  these  and 
the  succeeding  years  were  also  noteworthy. 

While  the  numbers  continued  to  increase  the  fol- 
lowing year,  the  potency  of  the  weapon  diminished, 
only  40.2%  of  boycotts  actually  ended  resulting  In  vic- 
tory. This,  however,  was  the  lowest  percentage  of  any 
year.  Of  this  year's  struggle,  the  Commissioner  of 
Labor  writes '? 

"The  boycott  is  not  as  potent  a  weapon  as  it  used 
to  be.  Its  power  for  offence  has  been  very  much 
limited  by  legal  decisions  and  the  interpretations  of 
conspiracy  law  by  the  court  have  discouraged  Its  adop- 
tion as  a  means  for  redress  of  grievances." 

During  1889,  1890  and  1891  the  numbers  reported 
remained  approximately  the  same,  177,  175  and  182, 
respectively.  In  1892,  however,  the  last  year  In  which 
the  bureau  collected  statistics,  the  number  had  de- 
creased to  less  than  half  that  of  each  of  the  three  pre- 
ceding years  (88).  The  growing  cautiousness  of  or- 
ganized labor,  combined  with  increasing  legal  compli- 
cations, probably  affected  this  result. 

Partly  on  account  of  the  supposed  non-existence  of 
the  boycott,  as  a  result  of  the  law's  condemnation,  no 

*  New  York  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor,  1886,  pp.  749,  750. 
^Ihid.,  1888,  p.  214. 


BOYCOTTS  IN  NEW  YORK  STATE      85 

further  notice  of  the  use  of  this  weapon  has  appeared 
in  any  of  the  succeeding  reports. 

Success  and  Frequency  of  Boycotts 

During  this  eight-year  period — 1885  to  1892  in- 
clusive— 1,352  boycotts  were  reported  to  the  Bureau 
of  Labor.  In  1 10  cases  no  mention  was  made  of  their 
final  outcome.  Figures  are  therefore  available  regard- 
ing the  success,  failure  or  pendency  of  but  1,242.  Of 
these,  over  500  are  marked  as  pending.  A  number 
of  those  indicated  as  pending  one  year  may  be  included 
in  the  figures  of  success  or  failure  of  the  succeeding 
year,  but  there  is  no  way  of  arriving  at  the  amount  of 
duplication  from  this  source.  Of  the  686  cases  re- 
ported as  either  succeeding  or  failing,  we  find  that 
461,  or  about  two-thirds,  are  said  to  have  succeeded 
{6'J.2%) .  The  percentage  will  be  very  slightly  raised 
if  we  include  in  this  number  the  13  reported  as  par- 
tially successful.  The  figures  also  indicate  that  S7>2% 
of  the  boycotts  actually  undertaken,  including  those 
pending  at  the  time  of  the  various  reports,  were  pur- 
sued to  a  successful  issue. 

The  first  year  of  the  reports,  1885,  shows  the  high- 
est percentage  of  success  over  failures.  It  was  then 
estimated  that  81.5%  of  those  actually  concluded  were 
wholly  successful,  while  95.4%  were  either  completely 
or  partially  won  by  the  boycotters.  The  next  year 
the  results  were  not  reported  so  fully,  but  from  the 
figures  available  there  appears  to  be  a  slump  in  the 
number  of  victories,  the  percentage  being  lowep  than 
in  any  year  except  1888.  In  this  latter  year,  when  the 
greatest  number  were  waged,  only  two-fifths  succeeded. 
The  second  most  encouraging  season  for  the  unionists 
was  in  1891. 

It  is  perhaps  more  than  a  mere  coincidence,  and 


86 


BOYCOTTS 


probably  Indicates  a  vital  truth  about  the  effectiveness 
of  boycotting,  that  the  greater  the  number,  the  less 
the  success,  in  many  cases,  of  the  use  of  this  weapon. 
The  smallest  number  of  boycotts  reported  was  In  1885, 
when  the  proportion  of  successes  was  the  greatest,  and 
the  largest  number  reported  was  In  1888,  when  the 
percentage  of  victories  was  the  smallest.  In  1889, 
when  a  considerable  number  of  boycotts  were  waged, 
the  success  was  comparatively  small.  The  results  of 
1890  are  also  significant.  However,  It  Is  not  wise 
to  lay  too  much  stress  on  this  relationship,  as  so  many 
other  factors,  such  as  legal  complications,  Inevitably 
enter  In. 


Table  showing  number  of  boycotts  in  trades  connected  with  par- 
ticular industries  in  New  York  State  from  1886  to  1892,  inclusive: 


Industries 


Food 

Building 

Materials  Entering  Bldg 

Clothing 

Transportation 

Printing  (Newspapers) . . 

Iron  and  Steel 

Furniture 

Clay,  etc 

Lumber 

Metals 

Miscellaneous^ 


174 

lOI 

20 
32 
25 
19 

ID 

5 

I 

4 
I 

32 


424 


O  G 


245 
121 
28 
47 
52 
38 
24 
14 
12 

7 

3 

52 


643 


2.  c 

<u  to 


9.tn 


71 .0 
83.5 
71  4 
68.1 
48.1 
50.0 
41.6 

35 
8 

57 
33 
61 


659 


-3  o 
o  ft 


596 

242 

47 
102 

79 
53 
40 

45 
23 
20 
6 
93 


,323 


40.0 
30 
8.64 
4.6 

18.2 

15-3 
12.7 

8.5 


29.6 


9.2 


(U.Jh  to 

'^    s  ^ 

*  to       § 


45- 1 

3-5 

II  3 

8.6 

26.3 

17.8 

14.9 

10. 1 

26.4 

16.7 

8.0 

44.0 


II  5 


1  Miscellaneous  includes:  barbers,  with  73  boycotts,  of  which  the  14 
settled  were  successful;  musicians,  7;  theaters,  5;  coal  handlers,  engi- 
neers, label-makers,  storemen  and  laborers. 


BOYCOTTS  IN  NEW  YORK  STATE      87 
Boycotts  by  Industries  and  Trades 

A  further  examination  of  the  New  York  situation 
will  disclose  the  fact  that  more  boycotts  were  waged  in 
connection  with  the  food  industries  than  in  any  other 
group. 

The  boycotts  in  the  building  trades  were  next  in 
number,  with  clothing,  transportation,  printing,  furni- 
ture. Iron  and  steel  and  lumber  following.  The  order 
given  In  the  table  on  page  86  is  based  upon  the  rela- 
tive number  of  successful  and  unsuccessful  boycotts 
reported. 

In  examining  the  third  column  of  figures  in  the  table 
it  will  be  observed  that  boycotts  in  the  building  trades 
attained  the  largest  degree  of  success.  These  trades 
showed  four  victories  for  every  five  boycotts  instituted 
and  carried  to  a  settlement.  The  boycotting  of  the 
food  products  came  second  in  the  percentage  of  success 
attained,  with  clothing  third,  lumber  fourth,  printing 
fifth,  and  transportation  sixth.  The  iron  and  steel, 
furniture,  metal,  and  clay  industries  have  the  lowest 
percentages.  In  the  last-mentioned  occupation  only 
one-third  of  those  reported  succeeded. 

While  boycotts  in  the  building  trades  were  attended 
with  the  greatest  success,  they  were  waged  In  that  in- 
dustry In  but  a  very  small  percentage  of  the  cases  in- 
vestigated (3.5%).  Since  these  cases  Investigated  by 
the  Bureau  of  Labor  corresponded  roughly  to  the  num- 
ber of  labor  disturbances  of  which  they  had  cogni- 
zance, it  is  evident  that  the  boycotts  in  this  trade,  while 
numerous,  were  resorted  to  in  comparatively  few  labor 
disputes. 

On  the  other  extreme,  the  boycott  was  employed  in 
over  40%  of  the  cases  examined  in  the  industries  con- 
nected with  the  preparation  of  food  products.  Of  the 
other  larger  groups,  we  find  that  the  workers  in  the 
printing  and  transportation  industries  report  its  use 


88  BOYCOTTS 

in  about  one-sixth  of  the  cases  investigated,  and  the 
iron  and  steel  industry,  in  one-eighth,  while  the  cloth- 
ing, furniture  and  metal  industries  wielded  it  only 
occasionally. 

Narrowing  our  inquiry  to  specific  trades,  we  discover 
the  preeminence  of  the  bakers'  trade  as  a  fertile  field 
for  the  use  of  this  weapon.  In  fact,  38%  of  the  boy- 
cotts reported  during  seven  years  in  the  food  group, 
and  nearly  one-half  of  those  resulting  in  success  or  fail- 
ure, were  waged  in  the  bakers'  industr^f.  Further, 
over  one-fifth  {22%)  of  all  the  boycotts  in  all  indus- 
tries, brought  to  a  successful  conclusion  during  the 
seven-year  period,  were  waged  and  won  in  the  bread- 
making  trade.  The  brewery  business  came  second  in 
numbers,  followed  by  cigar  making  and  waiting. 

Over  one-half  of  the  disputes  in  which  the  bakers 
were  entangled  during  these  years  are  seen  to  have  in 
them  an  element  of  the  boycott.  This  was  true  also  of 
the  waiters,  while  the  butchers  and  the  brewers  showed 
a  large  proportion  of  boycotts  to  the  total  number  of 
labor  disputes  (45.8%  and  34%  respectively). 

In  the  building  trades  the  painters  and  plumbers 
waged  about  one-half  of  the  boycotts.  These,  to- 
gether with  the  carpenters,  artificial  stone  masons  and 
framers,  conducted  nearly  three-fourths  of  the  boy- 
cotts undertaken  among  the  workers  on  buildings.  A 
high  degree  of  success  was  attained  in  most  of  the 
trades,  the  framers  and  masons  having  100%  to  their 
credit,  the  plumbers  over  90%,  and  the  painters 
71.5%.  In  fact,  13  of  the  22  building  trades  reported 
complete  success.  The  stone  masons,  in  the  larger 
group,  resorted  to  boycotting  in  about  one-fourth  of 
the  instances  reported.  The  painters  made  use  of  this 
weapon  in  but  one  out  of  every  thirty  disputes. 

If  we  group  together  the  trades  where  work  is  done 
on  material  ultimately  entering  into  building,  the  same 
success  is  noted,  as  is  also  the  same  small  proportion  of 


iSk, 


BOYCOTTS  IN  NEW  YORK  STATE      89 

boycotting  compared  with  the  number  of  controversies. 
The  stone  cutters  and  marble  workers  are  the  most 
active. 

Of  those  connected  with  transportation,  directly  and 
indirectly,  it  is-  found  that  the  horseshoers  used  the 
boycott  to  the  largest  extent,  and  with  a  considerable 
degree  of  success.  In  this  trade  over  nine-tenths  of 
the  battles  decided  were  won  by  the  boycotters,  and  in 
over  one-third  of  the  labor  contests,  this  method  of 
warfare  was  resorted  to.  Absolutely  no  success  was 
attained  by  those  employed  directly  by  the  railroad 
companies.  Too  small  a  number  of  cases  were  cited 
in  the  other  allied  occupations  to  point  to  any  con- 
clusion as  to  the  boycott's  effectiveness. 

The  printing  compositors  are  seen  to  have  had  the 
greatest  number  of  boycotts  to  their  credit  in  the  print- 
ing trades,  and  to  have  used  this  weapon  with  unquali- 
fied success.  The  employment  of  this  weapon  is  seen 
in  nearly  30%  of  the  cases  of  labor  disputes  investi- 
gated in  this  trade.  The  locksmiths  and  railmakers 
won  the  highest  per  cent,  of  victories  in  the  iron  and 
steel  industry,  while  the  iron  workers  were  but  rarely 
successful. 

In  the  other  industries  the  small  number  of  cases 
observed  makes  it  impossible  to  generalize  on  the  rela- 
tive efficacy  of  this  expedient.  Among  the  miscella- 
neous group,  the  barbers  were  the  most  energetic  in 
their  boycotting  methods,  and  their  work  was  pro- 
ductive of  good  results.  According  to  the  figures  at 
hand,  they  used  this  weapon  in  approximately  four  out 
of  five  labor  disputes  investigated. 

If  we  take  the  individual  trades  having  the  greatest 
number  of  boycotts  to  their  credit  year  by  year,  from 
1886  to  1892,  we  will  find  that  here  again  the  bakers 
show  the  most  consistent  efforts  in  this  direction.  This 
trade  reported  boycotting  campaigns  every  year,  at  no 
time  less  than  17  cases  being  cited,  while  in  1891  this 


90  BOYCOTTS 

number  was  increased  to  66,  It  held  first  place  in  the 
number  of  boycotts  from  1889  to  1892  inclusive,  sec- 
ond place,  two  years,  and  fifth,  one  year.  The  cigar- 
makers  came  next  in  the  number  of  boycotts,  although 
they  totaled  less  than  one-third  the  number  promoted 
by  the  bakers.  These  workers  brought  this  weapon 
to  bear  every  year,  in  1886  having  the  largest  number 
of  any  trade,  although  they  occupied  a  minor  place  in 
the  contests  of  the  succeeding  year.  The  waiters  were 
the  only  others  reporting  the  use  of  this  weapon  every 
year. 

In  1887  the  plumbers  excelled- in  number,  and  in 
1888  the  brewers  were  the  foremost.  The  painters, 
printing  compositors  and  framers  were  also  active. 
Should  we  consider  the  relative  proportion  of  boycotts 
to  the  number  of  disputes,  in  the  particular  trades  in 
which  boycotts  figured  to  any  extent,  we  will  note  that 
the  barbers,  bakers  and  waiters  employed  this  de- 
vice In  more  than  one-half  of  their  labor  wars  (81.2%, 
63.6%  and  54.7%  respectively),  the  printing  com- 
positors in  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  cases  investi- 
gated (31.9%),  the  cigarmakers  in  about  one-sixth  of 
the  cases  (17.1%),  and  the  plumbers,  painters  and 
framers,  connected  with  the  building  trades,  in  less 
than  7%  of  the  disputes  {6.6%,  3.7%  and  3.5%  re- 
spectively) .  Here  again  it  is  noted  that  trades  which 
have  to  do  with  food  and  drink,  as  well  as  such  per- 
sonal services  as  are  performed  by  the  barbers,  were 
most  practiced  In  this  weapon. 

Boycotts  and  Strikes — A  Comparison 

Glancing  at  the  various  relationships  of  boycotts 
with  strikes,  we  discover  that,  whereas  1,352  boycotts 
were  reported  from  1885  to  1892,  some  22,534  strikes 
had  been  waged.  The  number  of  boycotts,  in  other 
words,  was  about  six  per  cent,  of  the  number  of  strikes. 


BOYCOTTS  IN  NEW  YORK  STATE      91 

In  one  year,  1888,  there  was  one  boycott  to  every  four 
strikes;  in  1887,  one  to  every  seven;  in  1889,  o^e  to 
every  eight,  while  in  the  years  1885,  1886,  1890,  1891 
and  1892  there  were  from  20  to  35  times  as  many 
strikes  as  boycotts.  As  the  boycotts,  during  the  last 
few  years  of  the  report,  were  being  condemned  so 
vigorously  by  the  law,  it  may  be  that  a  number  of  the 
boycotts  undertaken  by  the  unions  were  never  reported 
to  the  authorities  at  Albany. 

An  examination  of  the  two  tables  will  fail  to  disclose 
any  fixed  relation  between  strikes  and  boycotts  during 
the  different  periods.  In  fact,  when  Se  boycotts  were 
greatest  in  number,  1888,  the  strikes  were  the  smallest. 
The  year  1890  showed  the  largest  number  of  strikes, 
but  came  fifth  in  number  of  boycotts.  While  64.1%, 
or  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  strikes  during  these  seven 
years  occurred  in  the  three-year  period,  1890  to  1892 
inclusive,  in  these  same  years  but  32.9%,  or  less  than 
one  third  of  the  boycotts  took  place.  The  hostile  atti- 
tude of  the  law,  however,  undoubtedly  affected  this 
result. 

If  we  compare  the  varying  success  of  strikes  and 
boycotts  during  these  years,  we  will  note  a  con- 
siderable parallelism.  The  years  1885,  1890  and  1891 
showed  the  highest  percentage  of  success  in  both 
boycotts  and  strikes.  In  1885  the  highest  percentage 
of  success  was  accredited  to  the  boycotts  and  the  sec- 
ond highest  to  the  strikes.  The  year  1886  revealed 
the  lowest  percentage  in  successful  strikes  and  the 
next  to  the  lowest  in  the  success  of  the  boycotts,  and 
the  years  1887,  1889  and  1892  occupied  from  the 
fourth  to  the  sixth  places  in  the  success  of  the  use  of 
both  labor  weapons.  It  will  also  be  noted  that  a 
larger  percentage  of  strikes  during  that  period  resulted 
in  a  successful  issue  than  was  the  case  with  boycotts 
(73-23%  as  compared  with  67.1%). 

That  the  boycott  is  undertaken  during  the  strike 


92  BOYCOTTS 

only  as  a  last  resort,  seems  to  be  a  correct  deduction 
from  the  figures  of  the  relative  success  of  strikes  with 
and  without  the  use  of  boycotts,  in  the  New  York  Re- 
port of  1889.  It  is  there  found  that,  of  the  108  strikes 
occurring  that  year,  in  which  the  boycott  was  used, 
but  31,  or  28.4%,  were  successful,  while  in  that  year 
80.4%  of  all  strikes  were  successful,  threatened  strikes 
having  even  a  greater  percentage  of  victories  to  their 
credit.  These  figures  seem  to  indicate  that  the  boy- 
cott was  resorted  to  only  after  other  ifieasures  had 
proved  ineffective,  and  that  its  use  saved  the  day  in 
about  one-fourth  of  the  cases. 

Of  the  17  boycotts  which  accompanied  "threatened 
strikes,"  9  were  reported  as  successful,  8  as  pending 
and  none  as  unsuccessful.  The  use  of  the  boycott  here 
evidently  warded  off  strikes  in  a  number  of  instances. 
About  19%  of  the  threatened  strikes,  not  accompanied 
by  the  boycott,  were  reported  as  unsuccessful.  How- 
ever, a  much  larger  percentage  of  the  total  number  of 
threatened  strikes,  waged  without  boycotts,  succeeded 
in  whole  or  in  part. 

In  this  year  a  little  less  than  one-third  (32.1%)  of 
the  boycotts  were  conducted  without  the  aid  of  strikes, 
or  threatened  strikes,  and  their  percentage  of  success, 
in  those  actually  concluded,  was  about  the  same  as  the 
success  of  the  total  number  of  boycotts  (70%  as 
against  68.4%). 

Durations  of  Boycotts 

The  duration  of  boycotts  was  given  in  the  various 
tables  in  only  a  portion  of  the  cases.  Enough  in- 
stances were  cited,  however,  to  indicate  some  idea  of 
the  average  duration.  Of  the  322  cases  where  the 
length  of  successful  boycotts  was  noted,  from  1886  to 
1892  inclusive,  it  was  found  that  the  largest  num- 
ber, 93,  were  won  in  from  one  day,  or  less,  to  one 


BOYCOTTS  IN  NEW  YORK  STATE      93 

week.  Of  these,  71  produced  the  desired  results  in 
between  three  days  and  a  week,  17  in  between  one  and 
two  days,  and  5  in  one  day  or  less.  The  next  largest 
number  was  won  in  from  one  to  two  weeks,  and  the 
third,  in  from  two  weeks  to  one  month.  Sixty-nine  per 
cent,  of  the  victories  among  those  whose  durations 
were  given,  occurred  before  the  thirty  days^  period  had 
expired.  It  took  from  one  to  two  years  for  seven  boy- 
cotts to  produce  results  desired,  and  more  than  two 
years  for  five  others.    The  figures  are  as  follows : 

Number  succeeding  in  one  day  or  less,  5  ;  in  from  one 
to  two  days,  inclusive,  17;  from  three  to  seven  days, 
inclusive,  71;  from  8  to  14  days,  inclusive,  76;  from 
two  weeks  to  one  month,  53 ;  from  one  to  two  months, 
32;  from  two  to  four  months,  17;  from  four  to  six 
months,  18  ;  from  six  months  to  one  year,  21 ;  from  one 
to  two  years,  7;  and  from  two  years  and  over,  5. 

The  duration  of  but  81  boycotts  which  resulted  in 
failure  could  be  obtained.  One-third  of  these  were 
waged  between  two  and  four  months.  More  boycotts 
were  ended  in  this  period  than  in  any  other.  Over 
one-fourth,  the  next  largest  number,  were  conducted 
for  from  two  weeks  to  one  month.  The  durations 
were: 

Three  to  seven  days,  3;  eight  to  fourteen  days,  6; 
two  weeks  to  one  month,  21 ;  one  to  two  months,  12; 
two  to  four  months,  27;  four  to  six  months,  4;  six 
months  to  one  year,  6 ;  one  to  two  years,  2. 

From  the  foregoing  figures  it  is  seen  that  after  the 
expiration  of  the  month  the  chances  of  success  were 
comparatively  small. 

Causes  of  Boycotts 

If  we  seek  to  discover  the  causes  of  boycotts,  we  will 
find  that  disputes  over  the  employment  of  non-union 


94  BOYCOTTS 

members  furnished  the  basis  of  the  greatest  percent- 
age. Other  prominent  causes  were  demands  for  higher 
wages,  for  the  observance  of  the  union  rules,  for  the 
reduction  of  hours,  and  for  the  maintenance  of  pres- 
ent wages.  Approximately  three-fourths  of  the  fights 
for  an,  increase  of  wages,  an  Increase  of  wages  and 
the  reduction  of  hours,  for  fellow  workers  belonging 
to  the  union  and  for  the  observance  of  rules  of  the 
unions,  seem  to  have  succeeded.  The  boycotts  insti- 
tuted to  secure  better  hours,  to  obtain  tlje  recognition 
of  the  union,  and  to  work  with  unobjectionable  fellows 
were  apparently  much  less  successful. 

The  causes  of  strikes  in  the  same  years  are  not 
materially  different.  If  we  compare  the  reasons  for 
striking  given  in  the  year  1890  with  those  for  boy- 
cotting of  that  year,  we  will  observe  that  the  four 
causes  which  gave  rise  to  the  largest  number  of  strikes 
were  Included  In  the  group  of  five  causes  which  were 
responsible  for  the  largest  number  of  boycotts. 

The  demand  for  Increased  wages  came  second  in 
order  in  each  strike  and  boycott.  Objections  to  non- 
union employees  furnished  the  motive  for  the  greatest 
number  of  boycotts  and  for  the  fourth  largest  number 
of  strikes.  A  demand  for  the  reduction  of  hours 
was  the  shibboleth  In  the  greatest  number  of 
strikes,  and  In  the  fifth  largest  number  of  boycotts, 
while  the  desire  to  assist  others  gained  the  fourth  place 
In  boycotts  and  the  third  In  strikes.  A  combination 
cause — a  violation  of  an  agreement  plus  an  insistence 
on  union  workmen — which  ties  for  second  place  in  the; 
boycotts.  Is  scarcely  an  Issue  In  strikes.  The  refusal  to 
sign  agreements,  which  holds  sixth  place  In  strikes, 
comes  eleventh  In  the  boycotts. 

These  figures  are  chiefly  of  Interest  when  the  ques- 
tion of  the  maliciousness  of  boycotts,  according  to  legal 
learning,  is  considered. 


BOYCOTTS  IN  NEW  YORK  STATE      95 

Summary 

The  New  York  reports  disclose  many  features  of 
interest  and  importance  concerning  the  boycott.  They 
indicate  that,  when  used  with  caution,  the  boycott  may 
be  an  exceedingly  effective  weapon  in  gaining  demands. 
Over  two-thirds  of  the  boycotts  which  were  brought 
to  a  final  conclusion  were  reported  successful.  This  is 
not  far  from  the  percentage  of  successful  strikes. 
"Thus  far  it  is  undeniable  from  the  proofs  advanced," 
declared  the  report  of  1885,  "that  it  (the  boycott) 
has  proved  successful  in  the  settlement  of  labor  dis- 
putes."^ 

The  reports  show  that  boycotts  are  used  with  the 
greatest  frequency  and  success  in  connection  with  the 
primary  necessities  of  the  laboring  class,  those,  in  the 
words  of  the  report,  "which  enter  into  daily  consump- 
tion and  are  of  such  a  character  as  to  be  made  subject 
to  ordinary  conversation."  The  largest  number  of 
boycotts,  for  instance,  were  waged  against  food  prod- 
ucts, and  the  boycotts  against  these  products  were  at- 
tended with  the  highest  amount  of  success,  if  we  except 
those  in  the  building  trade.  It  is  furthermore  to  be 
noted  that  bread,  the  most  common  of  these  food  prod- 
ucts, was  the  subject  of  nearly  three  times  as  many  boy- 
cotts as  any  other  one  product,  while  the  efforts  di- 
rected against  the  sale  of  this  article  were  attended 
with  the  greatest  degree  of  success.  Meats,  beer, 
cigars  and  newspapers,  all  of  which  are  purchased  con- 
stantly by  the  laboring  class,  were  frequently  and  suc- 
cessfully boycotted. 

Articles  of  clothing,  which  are  classed  also  among 
necessities,  felt  the  force  of  this  weapon.  Here  a 
fair  degree  of  success  was  noted,  although  less  than 
was  evidenced  in  the  food  industry.  It  was  shown 
that  this  weapon  could  be  used  effectively  in  trades 
'Report  of  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor,  1885,  p.  353- 


96  BOYCOTTS 

involving  personal  service,  such  as  the  barbers'  and 
waiters'  occupations.  The  success  of  the  latter,  how- 
ever, was  below  the  average.  The  boycott  was  also 
found  adaptable  to  the  building  trades,  in  which  it 
proved  most  effective  whenever  it  was  used.  Its  em- 
ployment, however,  was  comparatively  infrequent. 
Its  effectiveness  here  may  perhaps  be  attributed,  to 
some  extent,  to  cooperation  which  held  between  these 
various  trades. 

The  reports  also  indicate  that  the  success  of  boy- 
cotts is  likely  to  be  in  inverse  ratio  to  their  frequency; 
that  those  boycotts  which  do  not  act  effectively  within 
the  first  few  months  are  much  less  likely  to  succeed 
than  those  vigorously  pushed  from  the  very  beginning; 
also  that  the  causes  underlying  the  boycott  are  among 
the  determining  factors  in  its  success. 

The  New  York  experience  furthermore  teaches  that 
the  boycotts  are  subject  to  abuse,  but  that  that  abuse 
is  liable  to  prove  a  boomerang  against  labor,  and  that 
with  the  continued  use  of  this  weapon,  the  abuse  is 
likely  to  become  less.  The  chief  instances  of  injus- 
tice occurred  when  labor  unions  were  unduly  influ- 
enced by  rival  employers,  or  were  divided  into 
separate  camps,  as  well  as  when  they  endeavored  to 
extort  money  from  the  victimized  firm.  In  justifica- 
tion of  the  latter  practice,  the  union  men  argued  that 
strikes  and  boycotts  constituted  a  type  of  war,  and 
that  it  was  just  for  the  victor  to  force  the  defeated 
party  to  pay  the  expenses  of  war.  This  necessity  to 
bear  expenses,  it  was  argued,  would  teach  employers  to 
be  more  careful  in  the  future  about  engaging  in  such 
frays.  Violence,  which  appeared  in  some  of  the  early 
cases,  where  the  foreign  element  was  said  to  be  in- 
volved, did  not  accompany  the  boycott  in  the  latter 
period. 

Concerning  the  use  and  abuse  of  the  boycott,  the 
reports  state: 


BOYCOTTS    IN    NEW   YORK   STATE    97 

"The  boycott  Is  not  in  this  country  attended  with 
violence  except  in  the  case  of  foreigners."^ 

"Organized  labor  has  attained  that  period  in  its  de- 
velopment when  it  can  see  the  necessity  of  wielding 
this  potent  weapon  with  extreme  caution.  Time  was 
when  the  boycott  was  declared  at  the  slightest  provoca- 
tion. Not  so  now,  for  the  record  proves  that  the  or- 
ganizations are  loth  to  use  it  except  in  a  prudent  way, 
and  then  as  a  last  resort."^ 

The  injury  to  labor  of  any  abuse  is  thus  stated:^ 

"It  (the  boycott)  has  nearly  always  proved  suc- 
cessful when  the  parties  who  applied  it  represented  a 
public  or  moral  sentiment.  If  it  is  allowed  to  degener- 
ate into  a  simple  fight  between  competing  firms,  and  if 
the  pretended  leaders  of  the  labor  movement  assume  to 
apply  it  indiscriminately,  foolishly  and  maliciously,  it 
will  result  in  complete  disaster  to  the  movement  itself." 

The  attitude  of  labor  leaders  concerning  the  boy- 
cott's use  is  thus  set  forth  :* 

"It  may  be  remarked  that  the  more  advanced  think- 
ers in  the  ranks  of  labor  disapprove  of  the  boycott 
except  in  extreme  cases  in  which  no  ordinary  remedy  is 
attainable." 


^Report  of  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor,  1886,  p.  714. 
'Ibid.,  1892,  p.  418. 
» Ibid.,  1885,  p.  352. 
*Ibid.,  1887,  p.  521. 


CHAPTER    VI 

RAILROAD  BOYCOTTS  IN  THE  NINETIES 

The  Ann  Arbor  Strike 

Two  extensive  and  spectacular  railroaij  strikes  took 
place  during  the  nineties,  in  which,  for  the  time  being, 
the  boycott  was  employed  with  telling  effect.  The 
first  of  these  occurred  in  1 893  against  the  Toledo,  Ann 
Arbor  and  North  Michigan  Railroad  Companies;  the 
second,  the  following  year,  was  known  as  the  Ameri- 
can Railway  or  Pullman  Strike. 

In  the  Ann  Arbor  strike  an  attempt  was  made  by 
the  strikers  to  induce  connecting  railroads,  and  fellow 
members  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers 
on  other  railroads,  to  refuse  to  handle  the  property  of 
the  boycotted  road. 

The  strike,  resulting  in  a  refusal  to  pay  higher 
wages,  began  in  February,  1893.  Immediately  after 
it  was  decided  upon.  Grand  Chief  Arthur  of  the 
Brotherhood  issued  an  order  to  the  eleven  chairmen  of 
the  general  adjustment  committees  of  the  various  rail- 
roads of  Ohio  to  boycott  the  Ann  Arbor  roads.  The 
order  read: 

"There  is  a  strike  in  force  upon  the  Toledo,  Ann 
Arbor  and  North  Michigan  Railroads.  See  that  the 
men  on  your  road  comply  with  the  laws  of  the  Brother- 
hood.    Notify  your  general  manager." 

The  boycott  law  of  the  Brotherhood,  to  which  Mr. 
Arthur  referred,  was  a  provision  passed  in  1890  at 
the  Denver  Convention,  but  unpublished,  which  read: 

98 


RAILROAD  BOYCOTTS  99 

"That  hereafter,  when  an  issue  has  been  sustained 
by  the  Grand  Chief,  and  carried  into  effect  by  the 
Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers,  it  shall  be 
recognized  as  a  violation  of  the  obligation  for  mem- 
bership of  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers 
who  may  be  employed  on  the  railroad  run  in  connection 
with  said  road  to  handle  the  property  belonging  to  said 
railroad  or  system  in  any  way  that  may  benefit  said 
company  with  which  the  B.  of  L.  E.  is  at  issue,  until  the 
grievance  or  issue  of  whatever  nature  or  kind  has  been 
amicably  settled.  Disobedience  to  this  order  means 
expulsion."     (Italics  mine.) 

The  chairmen  of  the  various  railroads,  on  receipt 
of  these  instructions,  requested  the  general  managers 
of  the  railroads  to  order  their  engineers,  "in  the  in- 
terest of  peace  and  harmony,"  not  to  handle  the  freight 
from  the  boycotted  railroad.  A  few  days  later,  March 
II,  this  request  was  suspended  during  negotiations  for 
settlement,  but  was  continued  again  on  March  16,  when 
negotiations  had  failed.  The  very  next  day,  however, 
Arthur  was  compelled  by  the  court  to  rescind  his  man- 
date to  boycott,  and  a  similar  injunction  was  also  issued 
against  eight  of  the  connecting  railroads  entering 
Toledo. 

The  whole  question  came  for  decision  before  Judge 
Wm.  H.  Taft,  then  Circuit  Judge  of  the  Northern  Dis- 
trict of  Ohio.  Judge  Taft  declared  that  the  boycott 
order  was  a  violation  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Law, 
which  required  that  each  road  give  equal  facilities  to 
every  other  connecting  road.  Every  person  employed 
by  the  railroad,  including  Arthur,  the  judge  declared, 
was  subject  to  the  penal  provisions  of  the  act.  In  a 
separate  case,  brought  by  the  Toledo,  Ann  Arbor  & 
Southern  Railway,  one  of  the  engineers.  Lemon,  was 
held  in  contempt  for  refusing  to  run  a  car  from  the 
Ann  Arbor  line,  until  he  had  received  permission  from 
the  officers  of  the  union.     These  decisions  proved  a 


100  BOYCOTTS 

death  knell  to  the  use  of  the  boycott  by  the  Brother- 
hood. 

About  the  same  time  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  South- 
ern District  of  Georgia  decided  that  it  was  illegal  for 
an  engineer  on  the  Georgia  Railroad  to  refuse  to 
transport  the  cars  of  the  connecting  Savannah  Rail- 
road. The  Georgia  railroad  was  in  the  hands  of  a 
receiver.  The  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers 
tried  to  obtain  the  reinstatement  of  their  fellow  mem- 
ber who  had  been  discharged  because  of  his  refusal  to 
handle  the  cars.  The  practice  was  proclaimed  in  viola- 
tion of  the  Sherman  Law  and  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Law  and  of  the  United  States  statutes. 


The  Pullman  Strike 

The  classic  example  of  boycotting  in  connection  with 
the  transportation  system  of  the  country,  appeared  dur- 
ing the  great  Pullman  strike  of  1894.  This  strike  was 
conducted  by  the  American  Railway  Union,  of  which 
Eugene  V.  Debs  was  president.  The  boycott,  while 
in  operation,  tied  up  the  traffic  of  nearly  two  dozen 
lines  converging  into  Chicago,  and  vitally  affected  the 
business  of  the  entire  country. 

The  American  Railway  Union,  the  initiator  of  this 
boycott,  was  formed  in  June,  1893.  It  permitted  all 
employees  connected  with  the  railroads  to  become  mem- 
bers of  the  organization,  and  by  June  of  the  following 
year,  had  a  membership  variously  estimated  at  from 
150,000  to  250,000.  One  of  the  locals  included  many 
of  the  employees  of  the  Pullman  Palace  Car  Company. 

As  a  result  of  the  period  of  depression  which  was 
then  sweeping  over  the  country,  the  wages  of  the  work- 
ers in  Pullman  had  been  considerably  reduced.  The 
Strike  Commission  appointed  by  President  Cleveland 
testified  that  the  "percentage  of  loss  (as  a  result  of 
the  depression)  borne  by  labor  was  much  greater  than 


RAILROAD  B0rCGTt&  >!  r^:  5/ loi 

that  sustained  by  the  company  upon  material. "^  Rents 
charged  by  the  company  were  20  to  25  per  cent,  greater 
than  in  Chicago  or  in  surrounding  towns  for  similar 
accommodations,  and  these  the  company  refused  to 
reduce.  Great  discrimination  was  shown  against  or- 
ganized labor  and  shop  conditions  were  in  need  of 
improvement.^ 

Believing  that  they  would  be  backed  to  the  limit 
by  the  American  Railway  Union,  the  employees  de- 
cided to  strike.  May  11,  1894.  On  June  21  this  union, 
in  its  convention,  decided  to  do  all  in  its  power  to 
assist  the  Pullman  strikers,  even  though  it  had  ad- 
vised them  not  to  strike  at  that  unfavorable  moment. 
It  furthermore  urged  arbitration.  Before  adjourn- 
ment the  convention  declared  that,  in  case  no  agree- 
ment could  be  arrived  at  within  five  days,  the  officers 
of  the  union  should  call  on  the  450  lodges  and  request 
them  not  to  handle  Pullman  cars.  All  efforts  to  settle 
the  strike  proved  fruitless,  and  on  June  26  a  telegram 
announcing  a  boycott  was  sent  from  the  union  as  fol- 
lows: 

"A  boycott  against  the  Pullman  Company,  to  take 
effect  at  noon  to-day,  has  been  declared  by  the  Ameri- 
can Railway  Union.  We  earnestly  request  your  aid 
and  cooperation  in  the  fight  of  organized  labor  against 
powerful  and  oppressive  monopoly.  Please  advise  if 
you  can  meet  with  us  in  conference,  and,  if  not,  if  you 
will  authorize  someone  to  represent  you  in  this  matter. 
Signed,  E.  V.  Debs." 

Some  of  the  other  telegrams  addressed  to  members 
of  the  union  are  thus  quoted : 

"A  boycott  has  been  declared  against  the  Pullman 
Company,  and  no  Pullman  cars  are  to  be  handled. 
If  men  are  discharged  for  refusing  to  handle  Pullman 

1  Report  on  the  Chicago  Strike  by  U.  S.  Strike  Com.,  p.  32. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  25,  26,  35,  36. 


cars,  every  employee  should  at  once  leave  the  service 
of  the  company." 

On  June  28:  ''There  should  be  no  forceful  inter- 
ference with  mail  trains,  but  any  man  who  handles 
trains  or  cars  will  be  a  'scab.'  No  man  will  handle  any 
train  at  all  on  your  system.  Tie  up  every  line  possible 
to  enforce  a  boycott.  If  your  company  refuses  to 
boycott  Pullman,  tie  it  up." 

June  30:  "Do  no  violence,  but  every  man  stand  pat 
and  firm.  All  lines  in  Chicago  are  paralyzed.  Do  not 
interfere  with  mail  trains  in  any  way."  * 

July  2 :  "Advices  from  all  parts  show  our  position 
strengthened.  The  Baltimore  &  Ohio,  the  Pan  Handle, 
Big  Four,  Lake  Shore,  Erie,  Grand  Trunk  and  Michi- 
gan Central  are  now  in  the  fight.  Take  measures  to 
paralyze  all  those  that  now  enter  Cincinnati.  Not  a 
wheel  is  turning  on  the  Grand  Trunk  between  here  and 
the  Canadian  line." 

July  10:  "Debs,  Keliher,  Rogers  in  jail.  Rest  ex- 
pected to  go.  This  is  the  last  act  of  the  corporation. 
Our  cause  is  just.    Victory  certain.    Stand  pat." 

"You  will  notice,"  Debs  is  said  to  have  declared  a 
few  days  after  his  arrest,  "that  it  is  impossible  to  buy 
a  ticket  to  the  Pacific  Coast  in  Chicago  to-day  except 
by  way  of  the  Great  Northern  Railroad,  over  which 
no  Pullman  cars  are  running." 

The  employees  of  the  various  railways  never  re- 
fused, according  to  Mr.  Debs,  to  move  mail  trains  or 
passenger  trains,  declining  only  to  haul  Pullman  cars 
until  the  Pullman  Company  should  consent  to  arbitrate 
its  agreement  with  its  employees.  The  railroad  offi- 
cials, however,  determined  that  if  the  Pullman  cars 
were  not  handled,  the  mail  cars  should  not  move.^ 

A  complete  paralysis  of  many  of  the  railroad  lines 

^  Debs,  His  Life,  Writing  and  Speeches,  pp.  191 -192. 


RAILROAD  BOYCOTTS  103 

followed.     Mr.  Debs  thus  describes  the  situation  when 
the  judiciary  and  the  federal  government  interfered:^ 

"The  railroads  were  paralyzed.  Profound  peace 
reigned.  The  people  demanded  of  the  railroads  that 
they  operate  their  trains.  They  could  not  do  it.  Not 
a  man  would  serve  them.  They  were  completely  de- 
feated and  the  banners  of  organized  labor  floated  tri- 
umphantly in  the  breeze.  Beaten  at  every  point,  their 
schemes  all  frustrated,  outgeneraled  in  tactics  and 
strategy,  the  corporations  played  their  trump  card  by 
an  appeal  to  the  Federal  judiciary  and  the  Federal 
administration." 

Edwin  Walker,  counsel  for  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee 
&  St.  Paul  Railroads,  was  appointed  by  President 
Cleveland  Special  Counsel  for  the  government.  At 
his  recommendation  and  that  of  the  railroad  managers, 
3,600  deputy  marshals,  clothed  with  extraordinary 
power,  were  sworn  in.  Of  the  anomalous  position  of 
these  marshals  the  Strike  Commissioners  reported  i^ 

''United  States  deputy  marshals,  to  the  number  of 
3,600,  were  selected  by  and  appointed  at  the  request 
of  the  General  Managers'  Association  and  of  its  rail- 
roads. They  were  armed  and  paid  by  the  railroads, 
and  acted  in  the  double  capacity  of  railroad  employees 
and  United  States  officers.  While  operating  the  rail- 
roads they  assumed  and  exercised  unrestricted  United 
States  authority  when  so  ordered  by  their  employers, 
or  whenever  they  regarded  it  as  necessary.  They  were 
not  under  the  direct  control  of  any  government  offi- 
cials while  exercising  authority.  This  is  placing  offi- 
cers of  government  under  direct  control  of  railroads. 
It  is  a  bad  precedent  that  might  lead  to  serious  con- 
sequences." 

Nearly  2,000  United  States  troops  and  4,000  mem- 
bers of  the  State  militia  were  afterward  ordered  to 

^Ibid.,  p.  187. 

'Report  of  Chicago  Strike  Commission,  p.  49. 


104  BOYCOTTS 

Chicago,  Pullman  and  elsewhere  by  President  Cleve- 
land, against  the  protests  of  Governor  Altgeld  and 
Mayor  John  P.  Hopkins  of  Chicago. 

At  the  time  of  the  invasion  of  the  mllltia  In  Chicago 
there  was  undoubtedly  disorder,  although  the  strikers, 
for  the  most  part,  were  peaceful. 

''There  is  no  evidence  before  the  Commission  that 
the  officers  of  the  American  Railway  Union  at  any  time 
participated  in  or  advised  intimidation,  violence  or  de- 
struction of  property,"  declared  the  ^Commission. 
"They  knew  and  fully  appreciated  that,  if  mobs  ruled, 
the  organized  forces  of  society  would  crush  the  mobs 
and  all  responsible  for  them  in  the  remotest  degree, 
and  that  this  means  defeat."  However,  the  Commis- 
sion believed  that  some  strikers  were  concerned  in  some 
of  the  deeds  of  violence.^ 

Trouble  followed  the  coming  in  of  the  troops.  A 
number  of  injunctions  were  issued  and  arrests  were 
made  on  the  charge  of  contempt  of  court,  obstruction 
of  the  mail,  conspiracy  in  restraint  of  trade,  and  other 
crimes,  in  the  hope,  according  to  the  strikers,  that  the 
strike  and  boycott  might  be  crushed.  If  this  was  the 
moving  cause  of  these  actions,  the  results  must  have 
produced  satisfaction. 

On  July  2,  1894,  a  blanket  Injunction  was  issued 
against  Debs  and  others,  ordering  them  to  desist  from 
interference  with  the  United  States  mails  and  inter- 
state commerce  on  certain  enumerated  railroads. 

Specifically,  it  forbade  them  ''from  in  any  way  inter- 
fering with,  hindering,  obstructing  or  stopping  any  mail 
trains,  express  trains  or  other  trains,  whether  freight 
or  passenger,  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  or  carry- 
ing passengers  or  freight  between  or  among  various 
States,  From  compelling  or  inducing  or  attempting  to 
compel  or  induce  by  threats,  intimidation,  persuasion, 
force  or  violence,  any  of  the  employees  of  said  rail- 
*  Report  of  Chicago  Strike  Commission,  p.  45. 


RAILROAD  BOYCOTTS  105 

roads  to  refuse  or  fail  to  perform  any  of  their  duties  on 
said  railroads,  or  the  carrying  of  United  States  mail 
by  said  railroads,  or  the  transportation  of  passengers 
between  or  among  the  several  States.  Fro^n  doing  any 
act  whatsoever  in  furtherance  of  any  conspiracy  or  com- 
bination to  restrain  either  of  said  railroad  companies 
or  receivers  in  the  free  and  unlimited  control  or 
handhng  of  interstate  commerce  over  the  lines  of  said 
railroads,  and  the  transportation  of  persons  and 
freight  among  the  States."^ 

On  July  7  the  principal  officers  of  the  American 
Railway  Union  were  indicted,  and  on  July  13  an 
attachment  for  contempt  of  court  in  disobeying  the 
injunction  was  issued.  July  12,  at  the  request  of  the 
American  Railway  Union,  twenty-five  of  the  officers 
of  various  of  the  international  unions  connected  with 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  met  in  Chicago  to 
discuss  the  strike,  and  advised  a  return  to  work.  The 
American  Railway  Union  agreed  to  give  up  the  strike, 
providing  that  the  strikers,  except  those  convicted  of 
crime,  should  be  returned  to  their  former  positions. 
This  adjustment  was  urged  with  the  General  Man- 
agers' Association,  which  had  charge  of  the  strike  pro- 
ceedings for  the  24  railroads  connecting  with  Chicago, 
and  which  was  working  with  the  Pullman  Company 
throughout  the  controversy.  The  Association  de- 
clared In  advance  that  it  would  receive  no  communica- 
tions from  the  American  Railway  Union,  and  returned 
the  communication  unanswered. 

Mr.  Debs  was  duly  tried  for  contempt,  and  was 
sentenced  to  a  six  months'  Imprisonment  In  the  Wood- 
stock jail.  In  his  decision  Judge  Woods  asserted  that 
the  Sherman  Law  could  be  called  to  the  support  of  the 
Injunction,  but  that.  Inasmuch  as  the  property  In  ques- 
tion was  In  the  custody  of  the  court,  any  Improper 
Interference  with  the  management  of  the  railroad  con- 
^  Italics  are  the  author's. 


io6  BOYCOTTS 

stituted  contempt,  and  that  it  was  unlawful  to  advise 
a  strike  for  the  purpose  of  doing,  in  conspiracy,  an 
unlawful  thing,   knowing  that  violence  would  result. 

Mr.  Debs  was  also  accused  of  criminal  conspiracy, 
but  during  the  trial,  and  immediately  after  the  defend- 
ants had  called  for  the  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
General  Managers'  Association,  a  juror  became  ill, 
and  in  spite  of  urgent  requests  from  the  defendant's 
lawyer  that  the  trial  be  continued,  it  was  finally  dropped 
from  the  docket.  ^ 

In  the  meanwhile,  on  January  14,  1895,  the  con- 
tempt case  was  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  on  a  writ  of  error  and  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus.  The  writ  of  error  was  denied  January  17, 
on  the  ground  that  the  order  of  the  circuit  court  was 
not  a  final  order  or  decree.  May  27,  1895,  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  was  refused.  Justice  Brewer,  who 
rendered  the  decision,  asserted  that  the  findings  of  fact 
of  the  circuit  court  were  not  open  to  review  on  habeas 
corpus  proceedings.  He  asserted  that  the  govern- 
ment had  power  to  prevent  any  unlawful  interference 
with  the  United  States  mails  and  interstate  commerce, 
but  did  not  discuss  the  relation  of  the  Sherman  Anti- 
Trust  law  to  the  case. 

Another  prominent  officer  arrested  was  Mr.  Phe- 
lan,  who  was  also  charged  with  contempt.  July  13, 
1894,  Judge  Taft,  then  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
Southern  District  of  Ohio,  declared  Phelan  guilty  of 
conspiracy,  of  violating  the  Sherman  law,  interfering 
with  United  States  mails,  inducing  others  to  break  their 
contracts,  and  unlawfully  conspiring.  The  original  in- 
junction was  issued  at  the  behest  of  Samuel  W.  Felton, 
receiver  of  the  Cincinnati  &  Ohio  Railroad,  who 
claimed  that  Phelan,  in  combination  with  Debs  and 
others,  was  endeavoring  to  coerce  him  to  withdraw  his 
patronage  from  the  Pullman  Company. 

On  June  28,  1894,  a  number  of  the  strikers  on  the 


RAILROAD  BOYCOTTS  107 

railroads  in  California  were  tried  before  the  District 
Court  of  the  Southwest  District  of  California,  charged 
with  criminal  conspiracy  and  interference  with  the 
United  States  mail.  On  July  10  another  group  was 
brought  before  the  District  Court  of  the  Northern 
District  of  Illinois,  and  declared  guilty  of  criminal 
conspiracy,  insurrection,  interference  with  interstate 
commerce  and  with  the  United  States  mail.  In  the 
Circuit  Court  of  Indiana,  on  July  12,  defendant,  Agler, 
was  found  guilty  of  contempt  of  court,  and  of  violat- 
ing the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  law. 

The  following  day,  July  13,.  another  District  Court, 
in  the  Northern  District  of  California,  charged  other 
defendants  before  the  Grand  Jury  with  criminal  con- 
spiracy involving  the  Sherman  Law  and  the  United 
States  mails. 

A  number  of  other  cases  were  decided  in  California 
and  Missouri.^ 

The  Ann  Arbor  and  Pullman  controversies  indicate 
that  the  particular  form  of  boycott  adaptable  to  rail- 
road disputes  can  exert  a  powerful  influence  in  further- 
ing the  demands  of  the  workers.  In  both  of  these 
boycotts  the  concessions  asked  by  the  workers  were, 
for  the  most  part,  reasonable,  although  the  time  for 
presenting  them  was  probably  inopportune.  In  the 
American  Railway  strike  the  perfect  cooperation 
among  the  24  railroads  involved  through  the  General 
Managers'  Association  seemed  to  justify  similar  co- 
operation among  the  employees  of  these  railroads  by 
means  of  this  labor  contrivance. 

If  wielded  thoughtlessly,  the  boycott  on  the  trans- 
portation system  could  undoubtedly  play  havoc  with 
the  business  of  the  country.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
is  no  business  in  which  abuse  in  the  conduct  of  this 
weapon  brings  a  more  immediate  and  pronounced  con- 

1  Ex  parte  Lennon,  October  2,  1894,  C.  C.  Appeals,  Sixth  District ; 
U.  S.  vs.  Elliott,  October  24,  1894,  C.  C.  E.  D.  Mo. ;  U.  S.  vs.  Cas- 
sidy,  Ap.  I,  2,  1895,  D-  C.,  No.  D.,  Calif. 


io8  BOYCOTTS 

demnation  from  the  public.  These  cases,  resulting  as 
they  did,  in  the  decisions  of  Judge  Taft,  Justice 
Brewer,  Judge  Woods  and  others,  permanently 
stopped  the  employment  of  the  boycott  by  railroad 
employees. 

Incidentally  the  American  Railway  Union  boycott 
and  the  resulting  legal  entanglements  led  to  the  devel- 
opment of  the  workingmen's  political  movement.  The 
leader  of  the  strike,  Eugene  V.  Debs,  soon  after  en- 
tered the  Socialist  movement,  and  broughj  with  him  a 
considerable  following,  convinced  that  the  only  resort 
of  the  workers,  after  being  deprived,  in  their  economic 
struggle,  of  the  use  of  the  boycott  and  other  weapons, 
was  the  political  field. 


CHAPTER    VII 

THE  AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR  AND 
THE  BOYCOTT 

A,  F.  of  L.  Conventions 

During  the  past  twenty-five  years,  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  has  been  the  chief  representative 
of  organized  labor  in  this  country.  What  has  been  Its 
official  attitude  toward  the  boycott?  This  attitude  can 
best  be  studied  by  reviewing  the  proceedings  of  its  vari- 
ous conventions.^ 

The  negative  boycott — the  union  label — was  first 
mentioned  In  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  Con- 
vention of  1 88 1.  The  term  "boycott"  was  first  em- 
ployed In  the  1884  convention,  In  connection  with  a 
scathing  resolution  against  the  New  York  Tribune,  in- 
troduced by  John  F.  Hagan  of  Brooklyn.  The  reso- 
lution mentioned  the  Tribune  as  an  Importer  of  scab 
labor,  while  it  pretended  to  be  the  advocate  par  ex- 
cellence of  protection  to  American  mechanics.  It 
urged  that  the  Federation  continue  to  boycott  and  de- 
nounce Whitelaw  Reid  and  the  Tribune  *'while  the 
name  of  Independent  American  mechanics  is  known  to 
the  land." 

The  following  year  (1885)  the  Tribune  was  again 
denounced  as  a  newspaper  which  used  its  composing 
room  as  "a  recruiting  station  for  wage  pirates  and  a 
rendezvous   from   which   gangs   of   freebooters  were 

^  See  Reports  of  Proceedings  of  Conventions,  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  1881  to  1912. 

109 


no  BOYCOTTS 

sent  to  prey  on  the  wages  of  the  American  worker.'* 
In  this  convention  the  unscrupulous  use  of  the  boycott 
by  other  organizations,  presumably  the  Knights  of 
Labor,  was  vigorously  condemned.  These  organiza- 
tions were  accused  of  employing  this  weapon  on  "friv- 
olous, trivial  and  imaginary  grievances,"  without  giv- 
ing the  question  the  attention  and  thorough  investiga- 
tion which  it  required.  The  convention  voted  that  no 
boycott  be  approved  by  the  Federation,  until  it  had 
been  carefully  considered  by  the  legal  comjnittee. 

Of  the  same  tenor  was  the  convention's  position  in 
1886,  when  it  advocated  only  the  boycott's  "careful 
and  energetic  use  as  a  last  resort." 

In  1887  the  growing  importance  of  this  weapon  led 
to  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  on  Label  and  Boy- 
cott. This  committee  recommended  the  boycotting  of 
the  Douglas  shoes,  the  Tribune  and  five  other  firms 
which  dealt  in  cigars,  coffee,  beer  and  iron.  It  con- 
demned the  action  taken  against  the  Sun  and  against 
Milwaukee  beer. 

The  list  of  boycotted  firms  grew  to  such  proportions 
by  1889,  that  a  concerted  effort  was  made  to  decrease 
the  number,  and  in  the  following  year  a  resolution  was 
passed  that  "no  boycott  be  endorsed  by  the  A.  F.  of  L. 
until  ordered  by  the  Executive  Council,  and  then  only 
after  arbitration  and  other  means  had  been  exhausted." 
The  first  mention  of  Buck's  Stove  Company  was  made 
at  this  session,  the  grievance  against  the  company 
being  referred  to  the  Executive  Council. 

In  1 89 1,  to  restrict  still  further  the  careless  use  of 
the  boycott.  It  was  required  that  the  Executive  Council 
thoroughly  Investigate  every  threatened  boycott,  In 
conjunction  with  the  ofl^cers  of  the  national  and  inter- 
national unions.  The  following  year  the  convention 
resolved  that  no  boycott  be  considered,  unless  the  A. 
F.  of  L.  receive  a  special  request  from  an  affiliated 
body  under  its  seal.     In  1893  the  Federation  decided 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    1 1 1 

to  concentrate  its  attention  on  a  few  firms  most  sus- 
ceptible to  boycotting. 

The  first  issue  of  the  American  Federationist,  the 
official  organ  of  the  Federation,  appeared  in  1894,  and 
with  it  the  ''We  Don't  Patronize"  list.  This  list  grew 
steadily.  It  was  soon  discovered  that  many  of  the 
unions  failed  to  enforce  the  boycott  against  the  firms 
which  they  were  instrumental  in  placing  on  the  list, 
and  in  1897  the  delegates  decided  to  erase  the  names 
of  such  firms.  To  remedy  this  inertia  in  the  future,  it 
was  also  resolved  that  no  boycott  should  be  indorsed 
thereafter  until  the  union  members,  working  for  the 
accused  firm,  had  been  given  an  opportunity  to  show 
why  the  concern  should  not  be  placed  upon  the  unfair 
list.  The  Federation,  in  1898,  took  a  decided  stand 
against  the  circularizing  of  its  unions  with  boycott 
literature  without  its  official  indorsement,  declaring 
that  "the  continuous  and  overwhelming  flood  of  boy- 
cott circulars  leads  to  confusion  and  ineffectiveness." 
The  same  year  it  took  steps  toward  limiting  particu- 
larly boycotts  of  those  firms  employing  union  men. 
The  resolution  read: 

"Whereas  the  placing  of  a  boycott  upon  any  product 
the  manufacture  of  which  is  participated  in  by  two  or 
more  crafts  may  and  often  does  work  an  injury  to 
union  workers;  therefore,  be  it  "Resolved,  That 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  shall  endorse  no 
boycott  where  the  products  of  several  organized  unions 
will  be  affected  thereby  until  every  possible  effort  has 
been  made  to  secure  a  settlement,  and  all  organizations 
to  be  affected  shall  be  given  a  hearing  and  an  oppor- 
tunity to  assist  in  securing  a  settlement  in  which  the 
existing  grievance  may  be  settled."^ 

Perhaps  its  most  radical  step  in  the  constant  agita- 
tion for  few  and  effective  boycotts  was  taken  in  the 
1899  convention,  when  the  Federation  struck  out  all 
*  Convention  Proceedings,  A.  F.  of  L.,  1898,  p.  131. 


112  BOYCOTTS 

of  the  names  from  the  ^'unfair"  list.  These  were  re- 
published again  a  few  months  later,  after  many  settle- 
ments had  been  made.  There  were  98  names  on  its 
list  before  its  temporary  abolition.  The  Federation's 
desire  to  limit  local  boycotts  led  it  the  same  year  to 
forbid  any  central  labor  body  of  a  city  to  indorse  a 
boycott,  unless  the  local  union  proclaiming  it  had  sub- 
mitted the  matter  in  dispute  to  the  central  body  before 
the  boycott  was  decided  on,  and  unless  the  union  had 
made  every  effort  to  settle  the  dispute.  The  inter- 
national unions  were  also  strongly  advised  to  place  no 
more  than  one  firm  on  the  unfair  list  at  the  same  time. 

The  suspicion  with  which  labor  regarded  the  pro- 
miscuous use  of  this  weapon  was  again  indicated  in 
1900,  when  the  convention  refused  to  indorse  any 
newly  ordered  boycott.  In  1901  it  was  decided  that 
no  international  union  could  have  more  than  three 
firms  on  the  list  at  any  one  time.  The  Boycott  Com- 
mittee in  1904  clearly  voiced  the  sentiment  of  the 
delegates,  in  its  declaration  that  "if  any  one  is  unjustly 
placed  on  the  unfair  list  it  tends  to  injure  not  only  the 
organization  directly  \n  interest,  but  the  entire  labor 
movement." 

The  growing  caution  of  the  leaders  of  the  movement 
in  approving  boycotts  is  indicated  by  the  decrease  of 
the  number  approved  in  each  successive  year.  From 
1902  to  1903,  81  boycotts  were  indorsed  for  the  list; 
from  1903  to  1904,  40;  from  1904  to  1905,  21; 'and 
from  1905  to  1906,  21.  Thirty-three  names  of  firms 
in  the  latter  year  were  dropped  without  notice. 

A  new  section  was  added  to  the  constitution  in 
1905  (Art.  9,  Sec.  4),  which  provided  that  the  Execu- 
tive Council  present  to  the  convention,  before  ap- 
proval, an  account  of  the  details  leading  to  the  use  of 
each  boycott.  Perhaps  the  clearest  enunciation  of  the 
growing  policy  of  the  Federation  to  concentrate  its 
efforts  in  the  employment  of  this  labor  device,  was  con- 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR 


113 


tained  in  the  report  of  Owen  Miller,  Chairman  of  the 
Boycott  Committee,  in  the  1905  Convention: 

"We  must  recognize  the  fact  that  the  boycott  means 
war,  and  to  carry  on  a  war  successfully  we  must  adopt 
the  tactics  that  history  has  shown  are  most  successful 
in  war.  The  greatest  master  of  war  said  that  war  was 
the  trade  of  a  barbarian,  and  the  secret  of  success  was 
to  concentrate  all  forces  upon  one  point  of  the  enemy, 
the  weakest,  if  possible. 

"In  view  of  these  facts  the  committee  recommends 
that  the  State  Federations  and  Central  Bodies  lay 
aside  minor  grievances  and  concentrate  their  efforts 
and  energies  upon  the  least  number  of  unfair  parties 
or  places  in  their  jurisdiction.  One  would  he  prefer- 
able. If  every  available  means  at  the  command  of  the 
State  Federations  and  Central  Bodies  were  concen- 
trated upon  one  such,  and  kept  up  until  successful, 
the  next  on  the  list  would  be  more  easily  brought  to 
terms,  and  within  a  reasonable  time  none  opposed  to 
fair  wages,  conditions  or  hours  but  would  be  brought 
to  see  the  error  of  its  ways,  and  submit  to  the  in- 
evitable."^ 

Still  another  plan  to  increase  effectiveness  was  pro- 
posed in  the  1907  Convention,  namely,  that  unions 
which  had  firms  on  the  list  should  report  every  three 
months  the  progress  made,  failure  so  to  do  being  at- 
tended with  the  withdrawal  of  the  name  from  the  list. 

The  February,  1908,  number  was  the  last  issue  in 
which  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list  appeared.  The 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  In  the  Danbury  Hat- 
ters' case,  which  rendered  unions  liable  under  the  Sher- 
man Anti-Trust  law  for  threefold  damages  due  to 
boycotting,  was  responsible  for  this  withdrawal.  The 
final  list  contained  82  names. 

Despite  this  decision,  the  Boycott  Committee  was 

1  Proceedings  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  1905,  pp.  200,  201.    Italics  are 
author's. 


114  BOYCOTTS 

continued,  and  efforts  were  made  at  the  succeeding 
convention  to  make  the  use  of  this  weapon  still  more 
effective.  In  the  proceedings  of  the  1909  Convention 
(p.  281)  we  note: 

"The  boycott  should  only  be  resorted  to  after  all 
efforts  of  adjustment  have  failed,  but,  when  substi- 
tuted, it  should  be  made  so  effective  that  speedy  agree- 
ment ....  will  follow.  If,  in  instances  where  the 
boycott  is  now  necessary,  the  right  kind  of  publicity 
could  be  had,  the  boycott  would  be  unnecessary,  for  an 
aroused  public  conscience  would  speedily  compel  the 
manufacturer  and  the  selling  malefactor  to  put  his 
establishment  in  industrial  order  or  go  out  of  busi- 
ness."^ 

President  Gompers,  in  the  same  convention,  averred 
that  the  boycott  would  only  be  used  as  a  last  resort. 
He  said: 

"The  workers  fully  realize  that  the  boycott  and 
strike  are  means  to  be  used  to  maintain  their  rights 
and  to  promote  their  welfare  when  seriously  threat- 
ened by  hostile,  greedy  and  unfair  employers  when  no 
other  remedy  seems  available.  With  the  boycott 
cleared  of  wrongful  charges  and  misapprehension  and 
recognized  as  a  lawful  right,  we  will  find  its  use  dimin- 
ishing. It  will  he  a  power  held  in  reserve  and  used 
only  when  no  other  remedy  is  adequate.*'^ 

The  19 10  Boycott  Committee  approved  the  senti- 
ment of  the  1909  convention,  and  proposed  a  few  boy- 
cotts. The  191 1  convention  also  recommended  this 
action  to  be  taken  against  a  number  of  firms.  In  19 12 
but  three  firms  were  mentioned  by  the  Boycott  Com- 
mittee— the  Ward  and  General  Baking  Company  and 
the  Atkins  Saw  Manufacturing  Company.  Organized 
labor  was  not  called  upon  directly  to  boycott  these 

1  Proc.  A.  F.  of  L.,  Conv.,  1901,  pp.  281-282. 
^  Ibid.,  p.  32.    Italics  are  the  author's. 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    115 

concerns,  but  simply  to  give  the  unions  its  support, 
and  to  do  whatever  lies  within  its  power  to  bring  about 
the  desired  results. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  history  of  the  boycott  in  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  has  been  the  history  of 
the  attempt  to  restrain  its  indiscriminate  and  unjust 
use,  and  to  apply  it  only  as  a  reserve  weapon,  after 
the  most  thorough  investigation  and  careful  thought. 
When  used  in  this  manner  it  has  been  truly  effective. 

The  'We  Don't  Patronize''  List 

Having  considered  in  a  broad  way  the  general 
policy  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  relative 
to  the  use  of  boycotts,  let  us  analyze  more  carefully 
the  nature  and  results  of  the  boycotts  indorsed  by 
them,  as  indicated  in  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list. 

About  437  firms  appeared  on  the  "We  Don't  Pat- 
ronize" list  of  the  American  Federationist  during  the 
period  1894  to  1908.  Of  the  360  firms  whose  loca- 
tions were  given,  nine-tenths  were  situated  in  the 
Middle  Atlantic,  North  Central  and  New  England 
States,  and  nearly  one-half  in  the  first  two  sections. 
The  industrial  States  of  New  York,  Illinois,  Ohio, 
Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania,  Michigan  and  Missouri 
led  in  number  of  firms  on  the  "We  Don't  Patron- 
ize" hst,  in  the  order  named.  Chicago,  New  York 
City,  St.  Louis,  Philadelphia  and  Boston  were  the  most 
important  centers  of  these  firms.  Massachusetts  pos- 
sessed the  largest  number  in  the  New  England  group. 
New  York  in  the  Middle  Atlantic  group,  and  Illinois 
and  Ohio  in  the  North  Central  States.  Only  nine  of 
these  firms  appeared  in  the  South  Atlantic  States,  and 
but  a  dozen  in  the  far  West. 

The  firms  boycotted  in  the  Northern  Central  States 
and  far  West  seemed  to  be  most  effectively  attacked, 
and  those  in  the  South,  the  least  so.    The  firms  located 


ii6  BOYCOTTS 

in  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  apparently  felt  the  boycott 
more  keenly  than  those  in  the  other  centers  of  popu- 
lation. 

If  we  analyze  the  *'We  Don't  Patronize"  list  to  find 
out  what  industries  were  chiefly  involved,  we  discover 
that  the  greatest  number  of  boycotts  appeared  in  those 
concerns  which  dealt  with  food  and  kindred  products, 
as  in  the  New  York  boycotts  of  the  eighties  and  nine- 
ties. Boycotts  against  firms  producing  machinery  were 
numerous,  much  more  so  than  in  the  New  York  State 
figures.  Clothing,  household  goods,  printing  and 
paper  followed. 

It  is  impossible  to  state  the  exact  results  of  the  boy- 
cotts declared  by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
and  given  publicity  through  the  "We  Don't  Patron- 
ize" list.  Many  of  the  firms  appearing  on  this  list 
were  dropped  without  a  word  of  comment.  In  Jan- 
uary, 1900,  the  entire  87  firms  mentioned  the  preced- 
ing December  had  completely  disappeared.  No  names 
were  placed  on  this  list  until  the  following  May,  when 
23  concerns  were  mentioned.  Some  names  were 
omitted  doubtless  because  the  boycott  had  in  reality 
ceased  through  the  inactivity  of  the  international  union 
first  instituting  it;  some,  because  the  Federation  had 
failed  to  receive  the  proper  reports  from  these  unions, 
while  others  had  been  settled  with  the  firms  in  a  man- 
ner more  or  less  agreeable  to  the  Federation. 

When  settlement  occurred,  a  notice  generally  ap- 
peared in  the  Federationist  on  the  same  page  as  the 
"We  Don't  Patronize"  list,  which  read: 

"Notice:  The  dispute  with  the firm  is  now 

satisfactorily  settled.  The  same  (firm)  is  removed 
from  the  'We  Don't  Patronize'  list.  All  unions  and 
members  are  now  respectfully  notified  to  cease  their 
antagonism  to  the  products  of  this  firm,  and  to  give  it 
that  fair  consideration  and  support  to  which  it  is  now 
entitled." 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    117 

Presumably  most  of  the  firms  so  mentioned  had 
conceded  to  the  demands  of  the  union.  Some,  after 
conceding,  evidently  broke  the  union  regulations,  as 
they  were  afterward  replaced  on  the  list.  A  few  con- 
cerns declared  to  have  satisfactorily  settled  stated  to 
the  writer  that  the  boycott  proved  ineffective,  and 
that  their  name  was  removed  voluntarily  by  the  union. 
A  large  printing  house,  for  instance,  wrote:  "They 
took  us  off  of  their  own  volition  because  they  con- 
sidered it  (the  boycott)  a  joke." 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  number  of  firms  reported  as 
having  settled  is  not  an  absolute  indication  of  the  num- 
ber of  successful  boycotts,  although  it  is  the  best  that 
can  be  obtained.  It  may  also  be  said  that  many  firms 
whose  names  remained  on  the  list,  or  were  removed 
without  any  stated  settlement,  suffered  severely  from 
the  boycott,  and  were  in  all  probability  led  to  concede 
some,  at  least,  of  the  workers'  demands. 

During  the  existence  of  the  "We  Don't  Patronize" 
list,  from  March,  1894 — when  seven  firms  were  men- 
tioned— to  February,  1908,  some  437  boycotts  were 
reported  against  426  firms.  Of  these  437,  some  105, 
or  24.1% — practically  one-fourth — were  declared  to 
have  been  concluded  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  the 
unions.  The  percentage  of  successful  boycotts  was 
highest  in  the  leather  goods,  printing  and  food  indus- 
tries, while  in  the  clothing  and  household-furnishing 
businesses  settlement  was  reached  in  but  15%  of  the 
cases. 

On  account  of  the  resolution  in  the  Scranton  Con- 
vention of  1 90 1,  that  no  international  union  could 
have  more  than  three  firms  at  one  time  on  the  list,  it 
is  impossible  to  find  out  with  any  great  degree  of 
accuracy,  from  a  scrutiny  of  the  list,  the  relative 
amount  of  boycotting  practiced  by  the  various  unions. 

The  list  shows  that  among  "Food  and  Kindred 
Products"  the  number  of  boycotts  was  greatest  in  the 


ii8  BOYCOTTS 

cigar  industry,  while  the  flour  mill  and  cereal,  brewery, 
tobacco  and  meat  industries  were  next  in  order.  Com- 
paratively few  boycotts  were  directed  against  bread,  an 
industry  which  led  in  importance  in  the  New  York 
State  boycotts.  This  can  be  explained  in  part  on  the 
ground  that  bread  is  made  chiefly  by  local  agencies, 
and  that  boycotts  against  bakeries,  therefore,  must  be 
local  and  not  national  in  their  scope.  Boycotts  against 
flour  mills,  cereal  concerns  and  breweries  seem  to  have 
met  with  the  largest  degree  of  success,  while  those 
against  the  great  tobacco  combinations  were  less  ef- 
fective. 

Iron  and  steel,  hardware  and  bicycle  were  the  chief 
industries  boycotted  in  the  "Machinery  Group."  In 
this  group  the  ban  against  bicycles,  which,  for  a  while, 
were  purchased  rather  extensively  by  organized  labor, 
seemed  the  most  successful. 

Shoes,  clothing,  collars  and  cuffs  and  hats  were  the 
special  objects  of  attack  in  the  "Clothing  Group."  The 
hatters'  boycotts  seem  to  have  been  the  most  successful, 
with  clothing  next.  Apparently  the  boycott  was  used 
with  little  effect  against  the  great  collar  and  cuff  con- 
cerns and  shoe  companies. 

Newspapers  in  the  "Printing  Group"  and  furniture 
and  stoves  in  the  "Household  Goods"  group  were  the 
most  frequently  selected  for  the  application  of  this 
weapon.  About  one-third  of  the  attacks  on  news- 
papers and  furniture  houses  were  reported  to  have  ac- 
complished the  desired  results,  while  but  13.6%  of  the 
boycotts  against  stove  firms  resulted  favorably  to  the 
workers. 

A  decreasing  number  of  settlements  agreeable  to  the 
unions  involved  were  apparently  made  during  the  last 
few  years  of  the  existence  of  the  "We  Don't  Patron- 
ize" list.  In  fact,  of  the  hundred-odd  such  settle- 
ments in  the  fourteen  years  between  1894  and  1908, 
but  eleven,  or  a  little  over  one-tenth  of  the  entire  num- 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    119 

ber,  seem  to  have  been  made  during  the  years  1904 
and  1908  inclusive.  Thirty  cases  were  said  to  have 
been  settled  in  1902  and  1903,  and  the  remainder  in 
previous  years,  the  number  varying  from  6  to  1 1  each 
year.  Five  or  more  reported  as  so  settled  were  con- 
tinued again  after  an  interval,  indicating  that  the  firms 
later  on  disobeyed  the  mandates  of  the  unions. 

To  indicate  the  difficulty  of  waging  a  successful  boy- 
cott against  large  combinations  of  capital,  it  might  be 
stated  that  no  boycott  on  the  "We  Don't  Patronize" 
list,  which  was  conducted  against  corporations  men- 
tioned in  Moody's  Manual  of  Corporations,  was  re- 
ported settled  after  the  year  1904.  No  boycott  against 
a  firm  with  a  capitahzation  of  $2,500,000  or  over,  ap- 
pearing in  this  manual,  was  settled  satisfactorily  to  the 
union  after  1903,  nor  against  a  firm  with  a  $5,000,000 
capital  after  1901. 

Of  the  sixteen  firms  of  this  caliber  which  were  re- 
ported to  have  conceded  the  demands  of  the  union,  five 
sent  letters  to  the  writer.  Two  of  these  five  admitted 
that  the  boycott"  interfered  considerably  with  their 
business.  One  of  these  was  a  brewery  and  the  other  a 
bicycle  company,  both  sellers  of  articles  purchased  to  a 
considerable  extent  by  the  members  of  organized  labor. 
Of  the  three  remaining,  two  stated  that  they  did  not 
know  of  any  injury  which  the  boycott  had  done  to 
them,  and  that  they  had  ignored  the  boycott  until  it 
finally  ceased.  The  last  affirmed  that  the  efforts  of  the 
workers  did  not  result  in  serious  injury.  They  did  not 
mention  any  concessions  to  the  unions. 

Of  the  eleven  other  corporations  appearing  in  the 
manual,  and  said  to  have  duly  settled,  one  was  boy- 
cotted again  after  a  series  of  years,  and  this  time  no 
settlement  was  made.  It  is  reported  of  another  that, 
throughout  the  boycott  period,  8%  dividends  were  de- 
clared yearly,  the  rate,  however,  decreasing  to  5%  the 
year  of  the  settlement*    During  the  three  years  of  the 


120  BOYCOTTS 

boycott,  another  increased  its  capital  $5,000,000,  while 
still  another  corporation  reported  a  dividend  of  8% 
per  annum  until  the  middle  of  the  duration  of  the 
boycott,  when  this  amount  was  raised  to  12%.  No 
information  was  received  from  two  packing  firms  or 
from  a  tobacco,  aluminum,  street  railway,  bicycle  or 
cash  register  concern. 

To  secure  a  more  comprehensive  idea  of  the  actual 
effect  produced  on  firms  by  their  appearance  on  the 
"We  Don't  Patronize"  list,  and  the  accompanying 
boycott,  the  writer  corresponded  with  all  of  the  firms 
whose  addresses  were  ascertainable.  One  hundred  and 
thirty-three  of  these  gave  information  more  or  less 
detailed.  One,  a  manufacturer  of  wagons  and  agri- 
cultural implements,  whose  name  had  appeared  on  the 
list  in  practically  every  issue  for  five  years  and  nine 
months,  wrote : 

"We  are  not  aware  of  our  name  appearing  on  the 
list  you  mention,  and  this  is  the  first  time  we  have  ever 
heard  of  it."  Eleven  other  replies  were  received  of 
the  same  import  from  a  proprietor  of  a  hotel  and  from 
firms  dealing  in  tobacco,  picks,  machinery,  medicine, 
granite,  saddlery,  gold  leaf,  lumber,  tanning,  clothing. 
The  names  of  these  firms  had  been  on  the  list  any- 
where from  four  months  to  three  and  a  half  years. 
Seven  of  the  firms  appeared  In  the  Federationist  be- 
tween the  years  1902  and  1908,  and  ^vt  between 
1897  and  1900.  The  correspondent  in  only  one  case 
intimated  that  his  ignorance  of  the  boycott  might  have 
been  due  to  the  use  of  this  weapon  prior  to  his  con- 
nection with  the  firm.  Twelve ,  then,  as  before  men- 
tioned, were  unaware  of  the  existence  of  the  boycott. 
Eleven  firms  maintained  that  the  publicity  given  had 
helped  them.  Twenty-four  declared  their  positive  con- 
victions that  no  injury  had  resulted  from  the  boycott; 
thirty-two,  that  they  were  unaware  of  any  injury;  thirty- 
five,  that  they  were  injured  but  slightly,  and  nineteen. 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    121 

or  about  one-seventh  of  those  replying,  that  the  boy- 
cott affected  them  considerably. 

Of  the  firms  which  admitted  a  loss,  three  were  in  the 
food  group  (cigar  concerns,  breweries,  flour  mills), 
three  in  the  clothing  group  (shoe,  hat  and  woolen  con- 
cerns), and  three  in  the  furniture  group  (piano,  fold- 
ing bed  and  sewing  machine  firms).  Others  dealt  in 
bicycles,  boilers,  lime,  brick,  granite,  gold  leaf,  cooper- 
age and  wire  cloth.  In  nearly  all  of  these  cases,  the 
goods  handled  were  either  purchased  quite  extensively 
by  members  and  friends  of  organized  labor  or  by  em- 
ployers in  industries  where  strong  unions  existed. 

A  dealer  in  hats  appeared  to  be  one  of  the  chief 
sufferers.  He  stated  that  in  one-half  year  his  sales 
had  decreased  from  $932,000  to  $376,000.  Of  his 
80  customers  in  Minneapolis  and  St.  Paul,  he  asserted 
that  the  unions  induced  all  but  one  to  cease  their  deal- 
ings. A  cigar  firm  wrote  that  it  was  doubly  boy- 
cotted by  the  ^'Tobacco  Trust"  and  the  unions,  and 
that,  at  the  time  of  the  reorganization  of  the  firm  with 
Knights  of  Labor  members,  the  Cigar  Makers'  Union 
so  intimidated  the  jobbers  at  St.  Paul  that  they  can- 
celed the  weekly  orders  of  50,000  cigars.  The  firm 
finally  went  into  bankruptcy.  A  brick  concern  stated 
that  the  boycott  cost  it  about  $5,000.  A  milling  com- 
pany acknowledged  that  it  was  still  endeavoring  to 
counteract  the  feeling  created  some  fifteen  years  before 
against  their  flour,  but  that  it  was  "slow  work."  A 
bicycle  company  aflirmed  that  its  chief  loss  came  from 
the  impossibility  of  filling  orders — presumably  on  ac- 
count of  the  strike,  and  not  of  the  boycott.  Another 
bicycle  company  said  it  was  the  boast  of  the  unions  that 
they  had  caused  the  firm  to  fail. 

Of  the  19  firms  last  mentioned,  where  the  boycott 
was  used  with  some  effect,  7  were  kept  on  the  list  until 
1908,  2  until  1907,  2  stopped  in  1904,  i  in  1903,  i  in 
1902,   I   in   1901,  and  the  remainder  from   1897  to 


122  BOYCOTTS 

1900.  Not  one  of  the  names  of  these  firms  appeared 
among  the  large  corporations  cited  in  Moody's 
Manual. 

Among  the  unions  concerned  in  these  effective  boy- 
cotts were  those  of  the  metal  polishers  (3  cases),  ma- 
chinists (2  cases),  cigarmakers,  brewery  workers,  flour 
mill  employees,  boiler  makers,  granite  cutters,  boot 
and  shoe  workers,  garment  workers,  sheet  and  metal 
workers,  piano  and  organ  makers,  gold  beaters,  coop- 
ers, wire  weavers,  and  brickmakers. 

Various  reasons  were  given  for  these  losses,  the 
chief  being  that  the  goods  produced  were  purchased  by 
union  men,  or  by  concerns  in  which  strong  unions  oper- 
ated. A  brewing  concern  thus  wrote:  *'The  boycott 
was  injurious  to  our  business,  as  the  greater  part  of 
the  product  is  consumed  by  working  men  who  are  or- 
ganized." A  cooperage  company  stated:  "No  brew- 
ery is  permitted  to  receive  or  use  any  cooperage  not 
stamped  with  the  union  stamp.  .  .  .  This  has  re- 
sulted in  unionizing  all  factories  selling  packages  to 
the  breweries."  A  boiler  concern  stated  that  the  only 
orders  that  were  canceled  were  those  in  breweries 
strongly  organized.  A  granite  concern  was  hampered 
because  unionists  refused  to  allow  their  members  to 
work  upon  the  rough  stone.  Still  another  firm  averred 
that  its  loss  was  caused  by  the  damaging  of  its  goods 
by  workers  employed  in  its  patrons'  shops. 

Thirty-five  of  the  companies  replying  stated  that 
the  boycott  subjected  them  to  very  slight  loss.  These 
included  five  firms  dealing  in  food  and  allied  products, 
two  in  cigars,  one  in  meat,  one  in  preserves  and  one  in 
oysters;  eight  in  clothing,  two  in  shoes,  two  in  col- 
lars and  cuffs,  and  one  each  in  hats,  corsets,  elastic  gor- 
ing, and  clothing  proper.  Similar  reports  came  from 
an  officer  of  a  street  railway  and  from  companies  deal- 
ing in  bicycles  (2  cases),  iron  bolts,  lockers,  steel 
tubes,  typewriters,  rubber  belting,  stoves    (2  cases), 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    123 

plate  glass,  cement,  fountain  pens,  baskets,  tin  foil, 
burlap,  indurated  fiber,  boxes,  and  gold  leaf,  ships, 
and  lumber. 

Twenty-four  firms  were  positive  that  the  boycott 
did  not  affect  their  business  in  any  way.  These  in- 
cluded a  hotel  proprietor  and  concerns  trading  in  to- 
bacco, clothes,  shoes,  cotton,  furniture,  chairs  (2 
cases),  hardware,  machinery  (3  cases),  lumber  (2 
cases),  cooperage  (2  cases),  wall  paper,  leather,  cars, 
carriages  (2  cases),  steam  specialties,  billpostlng  and 
packing. 

Some  thirty-two  firms  stated  that  they  had  no  knowl- 
edge of  any  injurious  results.  This  group  contained 
one  flour  firm  and  seven  firms  producing  various  kinds 
of  machines  and  instruments — bicycles,  cooperage  ma- 
chines, tacks,  cutlery,  knives,  thermometers,  fire  ap- 
paratus ;  also  firms  dealing  In  clothing — shoes,  textiles, 
underware;  household  goods — trunks,  brooms,  sew- 
ing machines;  pottery — lime,  brick,  flower  pots,  ce- 
ment; bags,  boxes,  lumber,  leather  (2  cases),  print- 
ing, rubber,  soap,  bill  posters.  An  insurance  company 
was  in  this  list  as  well.  Forty-two  additional  firms 
averred  that  changes  in  the  firm,  fear  of  publicity  or 
other  reasons  prevented  them  from  giving  the  required 
information. 

Some  ten  firms  wrote  that  the  boycott  had  been 
a  distinct  advantage  to  them.  Thus  a  concern  dealing 
in  machinery  declared  that  they  figured  "union  an- 
tagonism as  a  rather  valuable  asset'^ ;  a  dealer  in  show 
cases,  that  labor's  opposition  gained  for  them  the 
sympathy  of  the  larger  merchants ;  collar  and  packing 
firms,  that  it  gave  them  "gratuitous  publicity,"  and 
stove  and  paper  box  concerns,  that  it  increased  the 
number  of  customers  and  the  size  of  the  orders.  Cloth- 
ing and  cigar  firms  were  among  others  thus  benefited. 

Still  others,  four  In  particular,  stated  that,  while 
they  may  have  lost  a  few  customers,  other  methods 


124  BOYCOTTS 

during  the  period  of  the  boycott  more  than  offset  any 
loss.  A  packing  company  averred  that  its  business 
increased  two  to  three  hundred  per  cent,  during  the 
boycotting  period.  A  number  of*  the  employers  ex- 
pressed the  belief  that  the  boycott  did  more  harm 
than  good  to  organized  labor.  A  shoe  concern  de- 
clared that  the  boycotters  spent  $20,000  before  they 
decided  to  call  off  the  fight. 

Many  admitted  that  under  other  circumstances  the 
boycott  might  have  been  very  effective.  Those  who 
know  the  almost  universal  method  of  business  men  to 
put  their  best  foot  forward,  and  refuse  to  admit  losses 
unless  they  desire  to  make  some  special  point  in  court 
or  elsewhere  of  the  loss  sustained,  will,  no  doubt,  dis- 
count the  optimism  of  some  of  these  replies. 

Among  the  reasons  given  for  the  comparative  inef- 
fectiveness of  some  of  the  foregoing  boycotts  were", 
the  non-union  character  of  the  customers^  the  national 
scope  of  the  firm^s  business,  and  the  absence  of  any 
distinguishing  label.  The  unsavory  character  of  com- 
petitors and  the  weakness  of  labor  were  among  the 
reasons  suggested  in  some  of  the  other  answers. 

After  declaring  that  his  business  did  not  suffer  from 
the  boycott,  an  officer  of  a  car  manufacturing  con- 
cern cogently  put  the  case :  *'We  are  not  selling  freight 
cars  to  the  labor  unions,  and  the  sale  of  our  product 
would  not  be  affected  by  their  threats  as  might  be  the 
case  with  hatters,  clothing  merchants  and  some  others," 
Of  the  same  import  were  the  reasonings  of  heads  of 
ship  building,  iron  and  bolt  and  other  manufacturing 
concerns.  Although  their  dealings  were  with  the  pub- 
lic at  large,  those  prominent  In  a  hat  and  a  typewriting 
concern  noted  that  "the  class  of  merchandise  we  sell 
and  the  class  of  people  to  whom  we  cater''  make  it 
unlikely  that  any  effort  at  boycotting  would  be  suc- 
cessful. 

The  difficulty  of  effectively  injuring  a  business  which 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    125 

had  Its  sales  in  every  part  of  the  country  was  empha- 
sized by  a  soap  and  a  tub  concern,  which  affirmed  that 
they  regarded  any  attempts  "to  influence  a  business  of 
wide  scope  like  ours  as  purely  a  phantom/' 

That  it  was  but  a  waste  of  energy  and  money  to 
attempt  to  boycott  a  product  which  possessed  no  dis- 
tinguishing mark  of  the  firm,  was  the  opinion  of  a 
shoe  concern.  *'The  name  which  appears  on  our  shoes 
is  the  name  of  the  jobber,  and  very  frequently  the 
shoe  is  copyrighted,  or  carries  the  trade  mark  name 
belonging  to  the  jobber.  Buyers  of  our  shoes  would 
never  know  by  whom  they  are  made,  so  that  you  can 
readily  see  that  the  consumer  could  not  in  any  way 
influence  our  sales."  A  textile  concern  wrote  in  the 
same  vein. 

A  Southern  dealer  stated  that  a  boycott  against  him 
affected  him  but  slightly,  inasmuch  as  30%  to  35%  of 
the  chairs  manufactured  in  his  section  were  convict 
goods,  and  as  customers  had  only  the  option  either  of 
purchasing  his  chairs  or  those  manufactured  in  prison. 

International  Unions  and  the  Boycott 

While  it  IS  impossible  to  obtain  a  complete  knowl- 
edge of  the  attitude  of  the  various  international  unions 
toward  the  use  of  the  boycott,  a  few  indications  may 
be  noted.  Our  chief  source  of  information  is  the 
American  Federationist,  where  appeared,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list,  the  names 
of  the  unions  initiating  the  various  boycotts  in  some 
three  hundred  odd  cases — in  somewhat  less  than  three- 
fourths  of  the  instances  mentioned. 

In  a  number  of  cases  the  unions  applying  for  the 
indorsement  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
were  central  labor  bodies;  in  some  instances,  federal 
unions;  in  a  considerable  number,  international  unions 
now  defunct  or  independent  of  the  Federation.    Some 


126  BOYCOTTS 

fifty-four  of  the  one  hundred  and  fifteen  national  and 
international  unions,  cited  by  Secretary  Morrison  in  his 
igi2  report,'^  or  nearly  47%  of  the  unions,  were  men- 
tioned as  having  been  the  originators  of  the  boycotts 
cited  on  the  list. 

The  unions  proposing  the  largest  number  of  boy- 
cotts, and  having  between  nine  and  a  dozen  firms  to 
their  credit,  were  the  garment  workers,  boot  and  shoe 
workers,  machinists,  metal  polishers  and  coopers.  In 
the  next  group,  with  from  six  to  eight  boycotts,  came 
the  wood  workers — now  merged  with  the  carpenters — 
the  leather  workers,  molders,  brewery  workers  and 
members  of  the  typographical  unions. 

Among  the  miscellaneous  group  with  five  to  their 
credit,  were  the  cigarmakers,  printers  and  color  mixers, 
blacksmiths  and  broom  workers.  The  others  were  as 
follows:  four  boycotts — retail  clerks,  textile  workers, 
elastic  goring  weavers,  carriage  and  wagon  workers, 
granite  cutters;  three  boycotts — hatters,  flour  and 
mill  employees,  bookbinders,  printing  pressmen,  brick, 
tile  and  terra  cotta  workers,  stationary  firemen,  stove 
mounters,  boiler  makers,  and  street  railway  employees ; 
two  boycotts  —  railroad  telegraphers,  carpenters, 
painters,  bakers,  tobacco  workers,  quarrymen,  wire 
weavers,  shingle  weavers,  paper  makers,  bill  posters, 
piano  and  organ  workers  and  glove  workers ;  one  boy- 
cott— musicians,  tailors,  upholsterers,  jewelry  work- 
ers, wood  carvers,  metal  workers,  potters,  commercial 
telegraphers,  print  cutters,  meat  cutters,  iron  and  steel 
workers,  sawsmiths,  pattern  workers,  sheet  metal  work- 
ers and  foundry  employees. 

We  thus  realize  what  a  great  variety  of  unions 
have  used  this  weapon  with  more  or  less  effect.  The 
most  active  of  the  boycotting  unions  no  longer  affiliated 
with  the  A.  F.  of  L.  were  the  watch  case  engravers, 
the  rubber  workers  and  the  gold  beaters.    The  leather 

*  Report  of  Proceedings,  A.  F.  of  L.  Convention,  1912,  pp.  64-65. 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    127 

workers,  coopers,  brewers,  cigarmakers  and  granite 
workers  apparently  had  the  best  success  among  those 
unions  waging  several  boycotts.  About  one-half  of  the 
unions,  chiefly  those  engaged  in  but  one  or  two  boy- 
cotts, seemed  to  have  no  victories  to  their  credit. 

Some  further  Indication  of  the  extent  to  which  the 
various  International  unions  have  brought  this  weapon 
to  bear  in  their  disputes  may  also  be  gleaned  from  the 
court  records.  In  addition  to  some  thirty  odd  of  the 
unions  already  mentioned,  court  proceedings  have  been 
noted  against  local  unions  of  teamsters,  plumbers 
and  horseshoers.  The  carpenters,  bricklayers  and 
printers  have  been  apparently  embroiled  In  legal  con- 
troversies more  frequently  than  any  of  their  companion 
organizations. 

To  secure  a  still  better  idea  of  the  extent  to  which 
the  individual  unions  employ  this  weapon,  the  writer 
sent  a  questionnaire  to  their  officers.  Eleven  of  those 
replying  stated  that  they  did  not  practice  boycotting; 
three,  that  they  utilized  this  weapon  but  rarely;  six, 
or  less  than  one-half  of  those  sending  Information, 
admitted  Its  employment. 

Of  the  eleven  who  denied  Its  use,  two  wrote  that 
the  nature  of  their  trade  prevented  its  successful  oper- 
ation, and  two  others  affirmed  that,  while  not  originat- 
ing boycotts,  they  assisted  in  the  prosecution  of  boy- 
cotts Inaugurated  by  other  unions.  One  thus  explained 
his  negative  answer: 

*'We  don't  have  to  boycott  any  more.  We  control 
the  skilled  workers.  Employers  desiring  skill  must  em- 
ploy our  members."  One  remarked  that  the  strikes 
In  his  trade  required  quick  action,  and  that  the  boycott 
was,  therefore.  Ineffective. 

Six  unions  admitted  that  they  employed  agents  to 
visit  and  Induce  dealers  to  purchase  only  union-made 
goods.  Fourteen  denied  the  employment  of  such  rep- 
resentatives.    One  officer  averred  that  during  one  boy- 


128  BOYCOTTS 

cott  the  union's  representative  "visited  every  dealer  to 
persuade  them  to  cease  business  relations."  Five  in- 
stances of  the  employment  of  such  representatives  were 
mentioned  by  one  union. 

In  answer  to  the  question  whether  their  agents  used 
coercion,  one  replied:  "Our  representatives  point  out 
the  fact  that  the  purchasing  of  unfair  goods  is  not  very 
profitable."  Asked  whether  the  agents  used  threats  of 
boycotts  should  the  dealers  refuse  to  acquiesce  in  the 
demand  of  organized  labor,  one  stated :  "A  boycott  was 
not  threatened,  but  the  firm  was  given  t*o  understand 
that  the  patronage  would  cease.  The  effect  in  nearly 
every  instance  was  successful."  "In  any  boycott  where 
we  go  to  a  merchant  and  ask  him  to  cease  buying  from 
a  particular  firm  there  is  always  the  implication  that, 
if  he  fails  to  do  so,  we  will  carry  our  patronage  else- 
where," declares  a  second.  "We  show  that  the  pur- 
chasing of  unfair  goods  Is  not  very  profitable,"  writes  a 
third. 

Good  results  generally  follow  the  employment  of 
these  traveling  delegates.  A  union  with  two  boycotts 
reports  success  in  one  case  and  an  agreement  pending 
In  another. 

"Such  visits,"  says  a  member  of  one  of  the  building 
trades,  "Induce  the  firm  to  telephone  (the  quickest 
means  of  communication)  to  their  contractors  and 
firms  to  settle  immediately  with  the  union  or  leave  the 
contract.  In  one  special  case  the  contractor  preferred 
to  leave  the  contract  and  not  deal  with  the  union." 

The  large  majority  of  those  answering,  wrote  that 
it  is  not  their  custom  during  labor  disputes  to  circular- 
ize the  labor  unions  or  the  general  public.  Nine  wrote 
that  no  circulars  whatsoever  were  distributed;  one,  that 
such  printed  matter  was  sent  but  rarely;  four  others, 
that  none  was  mailed  to  unions,  and  three  others,  that 
circulars  were  not  distributed  among  the  general  pub- 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    129 

lie.  Four,  however,  acknowledged  that  the  unions 
were  circularized,  and  one,  that  the  general  pubHc  re- 
ceived notices.  "We  give  all  of  our  strikes,  if  they  are 
of  long  duration  or  the  number  of  men  involved  is 
sufficient,  publicity  among  labor  unions*'  is  one  of  the 
acknowledgments.  In  the  circular  among  the  general 
public,  one  union  stated  that  it  only  requested  the  pub- 
lic to  patronize  fair  firms,  not  to  boycott  unfair  con- 
cerns. The  results  of  the  questionnaire  seem  to  indicate 
that  but  a  minority  of  the  unions  use  the  boycott  at 
present.  However,  but  a  small  minority  of  the  unions 
made  any  reply,  and  among  those  failing  to  answer 
were,  doubtless,  a  considerable  number  not  wishing  to 
in  any  wise  admit  that  they  were  indulging  in  a  prac- 
tice which  so  many  courts  consider  reprehensible. 

The  I.  W,  W,  and  the  Boycott 

While  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  favor 
the  use  of  the  boycott  wherever  it  can  be  employed 
effectively,  they  have  thus  far  resorted  to  this  weapon 
but  Infrequently,  largely  because  their  members  are 
employed  primarily  in  the  so-called  basic  industries, 
and  are  not  the  direct  purchasers  of  goods  produced. 

Their  attitude  may  be  gleaned  from  the  following 
letter  received  from  one  of  the  organization's  foremost 
officers: 

*'The  I.  W.  W.  uses  the  boycott  whenever  they  can 
do  so  effectively.  We  recognize  it  at  times  as  an  effi- 
cient weapon.  We  do  not,  however,  believe  in  placing 
the  boycott  upon  any  concerns  or  products,  and  to  al- 
low It  to  stay  there,  even  though  It  is  of  no  effect  what- 
ever. There  Is  also  a  difference  between  a  boycott  as 
practiced  and  advocated  by  the  I.  W.  W.  and  that 
generally  used  by  the  A.  F.  of  L.  The  difference  arises 
from  the  fact  that  the  I.  W.  W.  devotes  most  of  its 
energy  toward  organizing  the  basic  industries,   and, 


130  BOYCOTTS 

for  that  reason,  does  not  use  the  boycott  as  consumers, 
except  in  rare  cases,  as  the  members  of  the  organiza- 
tion are  not  the  consumers  of  products  turned  out  from 
the  plants  in  the  basic  industries. 

*'The  organization,  in  conjunction  with  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners,  boycotted  the  Goldfield  'Sun,' 
the  daily  paper  of  Goldfield,  Nevada,  and  forced  the 
proprietor  of  the  same  to  sell  out  and  leave  town.  We 
find  the  boycott  effective  where  we  are  organized  suffi- 
ciently strong  to  make  it  effective,  but  under  no  other 
circumstances.  The  organization  has  n«t  taken  any 
official  stand  upon  the  proposition  of  the  boycott." 

In  the  Nevada  controversy  referred  to,  the  members 
of  the  Miners'  Unions  of  the  I.  W.  W.  boycotted  news- 
paper proprietors  because  their  employees  failed  to 
join  the  I.  W.  W.  The  papers  declared  that  this  at- 
tack cost  them  some  $25,000.  In  court,  they  alleged 
that  the  miners  visited  advertisers  and  threatened  to 
place  them  on  the  "unfair"  list  if  they  continued  their 
advertisements ;  that  they  induced  newsboys  to  stop  sell- 
ing the  papers,  posting  on  a  blackboard  in  public  view 
the  names  of  those  who  continued  their  sales;  that  they 
persuaded  the  railroad  employees  to  refuse  to  handle 
the  papers,  and  imposed  a  fine  of  $15  on  any  member 
of  the  union  purchasing  a  copy.  Threats  of  physical 
violence  were  also  charged.  The  union  was  held 
guilty.^ 

At  Lawrence,  Mass.,  during  the  strike  of  the  textile 
workers,  the  I.  W.  W.  organized  a  boycott  following 
the  flag  demonstration,  and  forbade  purchasing,  for 
some  time,  from  those  merchants  in  Essex  Street,  Law- 
rence, who  took  a  stand  against  the  strikers.  The  boy- 
cott was  said  to  have  been  attended  with  considerable 
success.  The  saloons,  at  Lawrence  and  in  a  number  of 
the  other  strikes,  were  effectively  boycotted  by  this  or- 
ganization.   This  taboo  on  saloons,  however,  was  not 

^  See  Branson  v.  I.  W.  W.,  Nevada,  1908. 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    131 

generally  caused  by  any  antagonism  to  individual  sa- 
loon keepers,  but  by  the  necessity  of  keeping  discipline. 
On  account  of  this  more  or  less  official  boycott  of  the 
saloons  in  the  silk  workers'  strike  in  Paterson  in  19 13, 
Mr.  Haywood  declared  that  for  weeks  after  the  be- 
ginning of  the  strike  not  one  out  of  the  twenty  odd 
thousand  strikers  was  seen  intoxicated. 


Summary 

In  the  boycotts  indorsed  by  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  and  given  publicity  in  its  organ,  we  witness 
this  weapon  brought  into  play  for  the  first  time  against 
modern  industries,  many  of  them  highly  centrahzed, 
doing  business  on  a  national  scale,  and  with  an  exceed- 
ingly large  capitalization. 

In  endeavoring  to  interfere  seriously  with  the  sales 
of  these  concerns,  the  Federation  has  been  forced  to 
change  its  methods  of  attack.  The  experience  of  the 
last  few  years  indicates  that  the  very  necessity  of  the 
case  compels  caution,  careful  thought  and  deliberation 
before  any  boycott  is  indorsed.  It  shows  that  the 
Federation  can  hope  to  succeed  in  forcing  a  settlement, 
after  a  boycott  is  declared,  only  in  a  minority  of  in- 
stances. The  chances  of  success  are  especially  small 
against  firms  possessing  a  more  or  less  complete  mo- 
nopoly of  the  field,  against  those  doing  business  in 
every  part  of  the  country,  and  those  selling  their 
products  largely  to  the  employing  class  or  to  elements 
in  the  community  out  of  touch  with  organized  labor. 
Goods  purchased  chiefly  by  the  employing  class,  may, 
however,  be  effectively  boycotted  where  the  boycott  is 
forwarded  by  strong  unions — such  as  those  of  the 
brewery  workers — by  means  of  a  threatened  or  actual 
strike  against  employers  who  refuse  to  discontinue 
their  dealings  with  the  boycotted  concern. 

The  Federation's  experience  has  also  demonstrated 


132  BOYCOTTS 

that  the  non-appearance  of  distinguishing  marks  on 
the  "unfair"  product,  the  undesirable  character  of  the 
competitors,  and  the  weakness  of  a  labor  union  initiat- 
ing the  boycott  make  success  extremely  doubtful.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  thorough  organization  of  labor 
often  renders  boycotting  unnecessary. 

Other  lessons  to  be  drawn  are  that  a  boycott  will 
not  run  itself;  that  something  is  necessary  in  addition 
to  the  mere  appearance  of  the  name  of  the  firm  on  the 
"We  Don't  Patronize"  list;  that  the  unfair  character 
of  the  firm  tabooed  must  be  kept  constantly  before  the 
eyes  of  unionists,  and  that  much  effort  and  money  must 
be  expended  if  the  boycott  is  to  be  a  success. 

The  Federation's  boycotts  were  waged,  generally 
speaking,  against  the  same  classes  of  products  as  were 
the  New  York  boycotts  of  the  eighties  and  nineties. 
In  each  group,  food  products  were  boycotted  most  fre- 
quently, and  with  a  very  large  degree  of  success.  In 
the  matter  of  numbers,  clothing  comes  third,  print- 
ing fifth  and  metals  and  wood  among  the  last  in  each 
series.  Iron  and  steel  and  machine  products,  which 
scarcely  appear  in  the  New  York  cases,  are  important 
members  of  the  boycott  group  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  Be- 
cause of  their  local  nature,  boycotts  connected  with  the 
building  trades  were  more  prominent  in  the  New  York 
experiments.  Boycotting  of  individual  bakeries,  which 
headed  the  list  in  the  New  York  cases,  were,  of  course, 
of  little  significance  in  the  national  attacks,  although 
flour  and  cereal  mills  were  frequently  mentioned,  and 
were  fought  with  considerable  success.  Cigarmakers, 
breweries  and  suppliers  of  meat  were  mentioned  promi- 
nently on  both  lists.  Very  little  success  seemed  to  at- 
tend the  national  boycotts,  however,  against  such  highly 
centralized  industries  as  collar  and  cuff,  tobacco,  shoe 
and  meat  concerns. 

Perhaps  one-half  of  the  unions  at  present  connected 
with  the  Federation  may  be  said  to  have  battled  with 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR    133 

the  aid  of  this  weapon.  How  large  a  proportion 
would  be  employing  the  boycott  at  present,  were  it  not 
for  legal  interference,  it  is  difficult  to  state. 

Again  it  is  of  importance  to  call  attention  to  the 
growing  conservatism  of  the  unions  in  using  this 
weapon. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

THE  buck's  stove  AND  RANGE  CASE 

The  Buck's  Stove  Case    * 

The  crowning  attempt  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  to  put  into  operation  its  slowly  formulated 
policy  of  concentrating  attention  on  a  few  important 
concerns,  was  made  in  the  Buck's  Stove  boycott  of  re- 
cent years,  the  most  extensive  and  best  organized  of 
all  of  the  boycotts  waged  through  the  active  coopera- 
tion of  that  body.  Ending  as  it  did  in  the  conviction  of 
three  of  the  most  prominent  of  the  labor  leaders  of 
America,  Samuel  Gompers,  president  of  the  A.  F.  of 
L.,  Frank  Morrison,  its  secretary,  and  John  Mitchell, 
one  of  its  vice-presidents,  the  attack  on  this  concern 
has  attracted  international  notice.  In  its  advanced 
stages  it  ceased  to  be  a  fight  merely  between  the  small 
international  unions  initiating  it  and  the  St.  Louis 
Stove  concern,  and  became  a  battle  royal  between  the 
forces  of  labor,  marshaled  under  the  standard  of  the 
Federation,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  forces  of  capital, 
directed  by  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers 
and  the  Anti-Boycott  Association,  on  the  other. 

This  case  illustrates  so  clearly  the  methods  devel- 
oped during  the  past  few  years,  and  presents  such  im- 
portant legal  aspects,  that  it  merits  a  special  treatment. 

The  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Company,  the  original 
employer  concerned  in  the  controversy,  was  an  old  and 
well  established  St.  Louis  firm,  dating  back  to  1846. 

134 


THE    BUCK'S    STOVE    CASE  135 

Prior  to  the  boycott,  it  claimed  a  business  throughout 
the  nation  of  some  $1,250,000  annually,  and  employed 
on  the  average  some  750  men,  union  and  non-union. 
Its  president  was  J.  W.  Van  Cleave,  about  that  time 
president  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufactur- 
ers and  of  the  Citizens'  Industrial  Alliance. 

A  few  years  before  the  struggle  with  organized 
labor,  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Associa- 
tion, of  which  the  Buck's  Stove  Co.  was  a  member, 
entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  Iron  Molders' 
Union  and  the  Metal  PoHshers',  Buffers',  Platers', 
Brass  Molders'  and  Brass  and  Silver  W^orkers'  Inter- 
national Union  of  North  America,  providing  for  a 
settlement  of  all  disputes  between  the  associations  and 
the  unions  by  a  conference  committee,  and  stipulating 
furthermore,  that  the  decision  should  be  binding,  and 
that,  pending  adjudication,  neither  party  should  discon- 
tinue operations. 

In  the  nickel  department  there  were  36  metal  polish- 
ers, earning,  according  to  the  company,  from  $4  to 
$5.25  a  day.  The  company  contended  that  the  official 
working  day  of  these  polishers  was  ten  hours,  from 
7  A.  M.  until  6  P.  M.  The  polishers  averred  that,  for 
several  months  they  had  been  working,  without  any 
objection  from  the  company,  under  a  nine  hour  day. 
They  added  that  the  nature  of  the  work  was  such  as  to 
make  a  nine  hour  day  necessary,  if  the  health  of  the 
workers  was  to  be  properly  conserved.  Mr.  E.  G. 
Boyd,  a  metal  polisher  employed  by  the  Quick  Meal 
Stove  and  Range  Co.  of  St.  Louis,  in  an  affidavit  sub- 
mitted to  the  court,  thus  describes  the  conditions  under 
which  the  metal  polisher  toils : 

"It  takes  a  number  of  years  to  become  skillful  and 
efficient  in  the  work  of  preparing  the  castings  in  their 
rough  state  for  the  plater.  To  prepara  this  work  skill- 
fully and  properly  considerable  physical  force  is  re- 
quired,  especially  in  the  grinding  of  castings.     The 


136  BOYCOTTS 

work  causes  the  room  In  which  the  polisher  is  working 
to  be  filled  with  iron  dust  which  he  is  forced  to  inhale 
constantly,  which  is  a  cause  for  consumption.  The 
blower  service  used  in  the  plant  does  not  by  any  means 
carry  off  all  this  iron  dust.  .  .  .  A  very  large  per  cent, 
of  the  men  engaged  as  polishers  die  of  consumption. 
A  buffer  is  required  to  put  a  bright  finish  on  nickel- 
plated  work;  in  doing  this  he  uses  a  canvas  or  felt 
wheel,  and  a  composition  which  is  composed  of  lime 
and  grease,  which  substances  are  also  very  injurious 
to  health.  This  canvas  or  felt  wheel  ca^ts  off  a  fine 
dust  which  is  likewise  injurious.  /  believe  that  a  nine- 
hour  day  would  he  a  very  material  benefit  to  their 
health  and  happiness.  A  very  large  number  of  firms, 
including  one  at  which  I  am  employed,  recognize  the 
justice  of  the  nine-hour  work  day,  and  have  practically 
adopted  itJ*^ 

The  Buck's  Stove  Company  officers  averred  that  they 
noticed  the  employees  in  the  nickel  department  fre- 
quently quitting  work,  sometimes  one,  sometimes  one 
and  a  half  hours  before  the  ten  hours  had  expired. 
Shortly  before  closing  the  shop  in  the  fall  for  repairs, 
they  told  the  men  that  a  notice  would  be  posted  three 
weeks  before  their  reopening  the  shop  in  January, 
1906,  calling  attention  to  the  ten  hour  day,  and  that  the 
workers'  return  would  indicate  a  willingness  to  continue 
under  the  ten  hour  schedule. 

The  men  went  back  to  work,  but  on  August  27  of 
the  same  year,  on  receipt  of  a  letter  from  A.  B.  Groat, 
president  of  their  international  union,  they  left  the 
shop  at  the  expiration  of  nine  hours.  The  leaders 
were  discharged  that  day  and  the  next,  and  on  August 
29  the  men  struck  because  of  the  refusal  of  the  com- 
pany to  reinstate  these  discharged  employees.  The 
company  claims  that  this  action  was  in  violation  of  an 
agreement  with  the  Stove  Founders'  Association. 

*  Italics  are  the  author's. 


THE    BUCK'S    STOVE    CASE  137 

But  the  issues  involved  were  more  fundamental  than 
the  foregoing.  Mr.  Van  Cleave,  president  of  the  con- 
cern, as  has  been  stated,  had  recently  been  elected 
president  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufactur- 
ers. He  was  also  a  prominent  member  of  the  Na- 
tional Founders'  Association,  and  had  openly  boasted 
that  he  would  pursue  the  same  policy  toward  organ- 
ized labor  which  his  predecessors  in  the  National  Asso- 
ciation of  Manufacturers  had  commenced- — a  policy, 
for  the  most  part,  of  bitter  opposition.  In  his  dealings 
with  the  International  Molders'  Union,  it  was  alleged 
that  he  had  employed  spies  to  report  union  proceed- 
ings ;  that  he  had  refused  to  confer  with  the  union  agent 
and  had  ordered  him  off  the  premises;  that  he  was 
secretly  plotting  to  substitute  non-union  for  union  men 
in  the  concern,  and  to  make  his  firm  a  hot  bed  of  oppo- 
sition to  organized  labor;  that  he  was  watching  his 
chances  to  break  all  conference  agreements  on  the  pre- 
text of  an  overt  act  committed  by  the  union;  and  that, 
furthermore,  he  was  encouraging  other  manufacturers 
to  oppose  labor  organizations.  Such,  at  least,  are  the 
inferences  which  may  be  drawn  from  the  letters  alleged 
to  have  been  written  by  Mr.  Van  Cleave  to  Mr.  K.  J. 
Turner,  president  of  the  Manufacturers'  Information 
Bureau  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  May  28  and  May  31, 
1906,  and  submitted  by  Mr.  Gompers  before  the  Judi- 
ciary Committee  of  the  U.  S.  Senate,  January  6,  1913*^ 

These  letters  read  in  part: 

"With  reference  to  our  trouble  (with  the  molders) 
and  the  final  ending,  the  enclosed  notices,  which  were 
put  up  in  our  shop  last  Friday  just  prior  to  my  order- 
ing off  the  premises  one  of  the  business  agents  of  the 
I.  M.  U,  (International  Molders'  Union)  and  giving 
him  to  understand  that  he  must  not  enter  these  premi- 
ses again,  are  the  very  best  evidences  that  I  can  give 

1  Hearings  before  a  sub-committee  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judi- 
ciary, etc.,  on  H.  R.  23635,  62  Cong.,  3rd  Session,  pp.  ii-i3- 


138  BOYCOTTS 

you  that  all  that  the  molders  have  claimed  is  hot 
air.  ...  I  gave  Mr.  Keough  (the  union  agent)  to 
understand  thoroughly  and  without  mincing  words  that 
this  shop  was  an  'Open  Shop,'  whether  he  was  pleased 
to  so  recognize  the  fact  or  not.  /  gave  him  to  under- 
stand that  we  would  not  recognize  the  I.  M.  U.  in  the 
shop  or  any  of  its  methods,  and  that  we  would  treat 
only  with  the  committee  provided  for  in  the  conference 
agreements  as  a  representative  only  of  the  molders  em- 
ployed in  our  shop.   .  .  . 

"I  note  that  you  say  that  the  two  rpen  that  you 
refer  to  are  connected  with  the  N.  F.  A.  (National 
Founders'  Association).  ...  I  wish  it  had  been  pos- 
sible for  us  too  to  have  helped  the  N.  F.  A.  by  remain- 
ing idle  a  month  longer,  and  it  behooves  us  to  bolster 
up  the  N.  F.  A.  in  every  way  that  may  lie  in  our  power, 
that  I  would  suggest  that  you  may  have  to  stand  by 
Mr.  Briggs  until  this  particular  fight  is  over.  When 
this  comes  about,  it  may  be  possible  for  us  to  begin  in 
a  quiet,  unassuming  and  systematic  way  to  put  into  our 
shop  as  many  of  the  non-union  molders  as  can  be  found 
in  this  country.  I  should  like  to  do  this,  but  not  under 
any  specially  high-priced  contract,  but  to  put  them  in 
here  as  a  sort  of  hot  bed,  and,  if  necessary,  to  hold 
them  in  line  when  war  again  breaks  out. 

''/  am  particularly  anxious  to  have  the  I.  M.  U. 
commit  an  overt  act  that  will  cancel  and  wipe  out  of 
existence  all  of  the  conference  agreements  now  in  exist- 
ence between  the  S.  F.  N.  D.  A.  {Stove  Founders^ 
National  Defense  Association)  and  the  I.  M.  U.,  in 
the  same  way  that  their  strike  act  wiped  out  of  exist- 
ence all  of  those  obnoxious  agreements  that  they  tried 
to  put  upon  us."^ 

Mr.  Van  Cleave  is  further  quoted  as  acknowledging 
the  support  he  had  received  from  other  organizations, 
and  as  stating  that  "Gompers  will  be  frothing  at  the 
mouth"  when  he  (Van  Cleave)  expresses  the  attitude 

*  Italics  are  the  author's. 


THE    BUCK'S    STOVE    CASE  139 

of  the  N.  A.  M.  toward  the  methods  of  organized 
labor. 

In  his  later  letter  Mr.  Van  Cleave,  it  is  alleged, 
thanked  Mr.  Turner  for  his  comments  on  the  reports  of 
A-2  (the  detective  reports),  and  urged  him  to  visit  and 
encourage  a  number  of  stove  manufacturers,  and  to 
instil  courage  into  them.  He  repeated  a  conversation 
of  Mr.  Keough  in  the  union  meeting,  which  the  detec- 
tive, A-2,  had  reported  to  him,  declared  that  it  was 
going  to  be  his  business  "to  get  the  I.  M.  U.  into  a 
trap,"  urged  Mr.  Turner  to  show  the  detective  reports 
to  other  manufacturers,  and  thus  ended:  "I  was  given 
a  quiet  tip  that  if  I  would  just  stop  this  detective  busi- 
ness I  would  stop  a  great  deal  of  my  trouble.  Right 
there  I  made  up  my  mind  that  I  would  not  stop  it, 
and  if  I  should  make  you  a  suggestion  it  would  be  that 
you  want  to  use  the  reports,  to  use  them  raw." 

The  unjustifiable  action  of  the  Founders'  Associa- 
tion, in  breaking  their  agreements  with  the  union,  was 
also  referred  to.  If  this  was  the  attitude  of  Mr. 
Van  Cleave  toward  the  molders'  union,  was  it  incon- 
ceivable that  the  same  spirit  animated  him  in  his  deal- 
ings with  the  polishers'  union,  and  was  not  such  an 
attitude  a  sufficient  menace  to  organized  labor  to  jus- 
tify the  use  of  all  legitimate  weapons  at  its  command 
to  win  the  battle  which  the  polishers  had  started? 

The  causes  of  the  controversy  have  been  entered 
into  at  some  length  because  the  opponents  of  the  boy- 
cott are  prone  to  point  to  the  Buck's  Stove  case  as  a 
glaring  example  of  abuse,  and  to  picture  Mr.  Van 
Cleave  as  a  true  friend  of  labor  victimized  in  a  most 
unjustifiable  manner  by  the  employment  of  this  weapon. 

Immediately  following  the  strike  of  the  polishers  in 
August,  a  system  of  picketing  and  boycotting  was  in- 
augurated first  by  this  union,  and  later  by  the  St.  Louis 
Trades  and  Labor  Council.  At  the  convention  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  October,   1906,  the 


HO  BOYCOTTS 

question  of  boycotting  the  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Co. 
was  discussed.  George  Bechtold  of  the  Foundry  Work- 
ers' and  others  represented  that  the  metal  polishers 
had  enjoyed  the  nine  hour  day  for  i8  months,  and  that 
the  company  was  now  endeavoring  to  restore  the  ten 
hour  day;  that  Mr.  Van  Cleave  had  a  "reputation  like 
Parry  and  Post,"  and  had  refused  to  deal  with  the  com- 
mittee composed  of  David  Kreyling,  business  agent 
of  the  St.  Louis  Trade  and  Labor  Council,  Ed- 
ward Lucas,  of  the  Metal  Polishers'  .Union,  and 
himself. 

The  majority  of  the  committee  to  whom  the  matter 
was  referred,  recommended  that  it  be  considered  by 
the  Executive  Council  in  accordance  with  Article  9, 
Section  4,  of  the  Constitution,  while  the  minority  rec- 
ommended immediate  action,  partly  on  the  ground  of 
Mr.  Van  Cleave's  well  known  antagonism  to  organized 
labor. 

Joseph  Valentine,  vice-president  of  the  A.  F.  of  L., 
and  president  of  the  International  Iron  Workers' 
Union,  was  asked  to  adjust  the  matter  if  possible,  but 
in  March,  1907,  reported  that  he  had  seen  President 
McAfee  of  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  As- 
sociation, and  had  been  told  that  Mr.  Van  Cleave  was 
in  no  mood  to  consider  an  adjustment.  Gompers  was 
also  advised  by  local  leaders  that  the  interview  which 
they  had  had  with  Mr.  Van  Cleave  indicated  to  them 
that  it  was  impossible  to  reach  an  agreement,  and  that 
several  unionists  had  been  discharged  because  of  their 
activity  in  their  unions. 

On  the  receipt  of  this  information,  the  name  of  the 
firm  was  placed  on  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list  in 
May,  1907,  with  the  usual  salutation: 

"To  Affihated  Unions: 

"At  the  request  of  the  unions  interested,  and  after 
due  investigation  and  attempt  at  settlement,  the  follow- 
ing firm  has  been  declared  unfair: 


THE    BUCK'S    STOVE    CASE  141 

"Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Company. 

^'Secretaries  are  requested  to  read  this  notice  in 
union  meetings,  and  labor  and  reform  press  please 
copy. 

"Fraternally  yours, 

"Samuel  Gompers." 

Circulars  announcing  the  boycott  were  also  sent,  it  is 
alleged,  to  the  members  of  the  union,  patrons  and  the 
public. 

In  the  American  Federationist  of  October,  1907, 
the  members  were  admonished  to  keep  the  Buck's 
Stove  and  Range  Company  in  mind,  and  to  remember 
that  it  was  on  the  "Unfair  List"  of  organized  labor  of 
America. 

On  November  26,  after  legal  action  had  been 
brought  against  the  Federation,  an  appeal  was  sent 
broadcast  to  organized  labor,  urging  a  more  active 
boycott  than  ever  before. 

This  circular  read: 

"To  All  Organized  Labor  and  Friends: 
"You  undoubtedly  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  the 
interests  of  the  Foundry  Employees  and  Metal  Polish- 
ers have  been  greatly  injured  on  account  of  the  hostile 
action  of  the  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Company  of 
St.  Louis,  of  which  Mr.  Van  Cleave  is  president,  and 
he  is  also  president  of  the  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers. 

"As  you  are  well  aware,  so  inimical  to  the  welfare 
of  labor  was  the  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Company's 
management  that  the  organization  concerned  felt 
obliged  to  call  the  products  of  that  company  unfair. 
The  workmen's  organization  appealed  to  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  to  indorse  its  action.  After 
due  investigation  that  indorsement  was  given  and  is 
still  further  affirmed.  The  circumstances  leading  to 
this  action  are  so  widely  known  that  they  need  not  here 
be  recounted.  .  .  . 


142  BOYCOTTS 

''It  would  be  well  for  you,  as  central  bodies,  local 
unions,  and  individual  members  of  organized  labor  and 
sympathizers,  to  call  on  business  men  in  your  respective 
localities,  urge  their  sympathetic  cooperation  and  ask 
them  to  write  to  the  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Company 
of  St.  Louis,  urging  it  to  make  an  honorable  adjust- 
ment of  its  relation  with  organized  labor.  Act  ener- 
getically and  at  once.  Report  the  result  of  your  effort 
to  the  undersigned. 

"Samuel  Gompers, 

"President  American  Federation  of  Labor. 
Attest: 

"Frank  Morrison,  Secretary. 

"By  order  of  the  Executive  Council  of  the 
A.  F.  of  L.^' 

A  nation-wide  boycott  was  entered  upon.  The  pa- 
trons of  the  Buck's  Stove  received  many  letters  inform- 
ing them  that  the  firm  was  on  the  unfair  list  as  a  result 
of  its  effort  to  force  the  employees  to  return  to  a  ten 
hour  day.  They  were  urged  to  return  the  goods 
shipped  to  their  firms  and  to  notify  Mr.  Van  Cleave 
that  they  would  refrain  from  making  any  further 
purchases  until  he  treated  his  employees  more  fairly. 

Parades  were  organized  by  the  Metal  Polishers', 
St.  Louis  Central  Union  and  other  bodies  in  which  boy- 
cott transparencies  were  prominent  features.  These 
parades  were  halted  in  front  of  stores  selling  Buck's 
stoves  and  denunciatory  speeches  were  made.  Stick- 
ers and  posters  were,  in  some  instances,  placed  on  the 
windows  of  patrons,  and  customers  were  urged  to  stay 
away  from  them. 

Central  bodies  in  many  cities  sent  delegations  to 
Van  Cleave's  customers,  who  were  asked  to  discontinue 
the  sale  of  stoves.  The  St.  Louis  House  Furnishing 
Company  alleged,  for  instance,  that  a  committee  re- 
quested it  flot  to  dispose  of  any  more  of  Buck's  wares. 


THE    BUCK'S    STOVE    CASE  143 

The  company  agreed  to  this,  providing  the  committee 
purchased  from  it  the  $5,000  worth  of  stoves  on  hand. 
The  unionists,  of  course,  refused,  and  began  to  place 
a  ban  on  the  store.  Other  dealers  alleged  threats 
of  boycott,  unless  they  broke  their  contract  with  the 
Buck's  Stove  Company,  and  some  testified  to  threats 
of  violence.  Still  others  asserted  that  labor  delegates 
promised  to  allow  them  to  sell  the  goods  which  they 
had  on  hand  and  to  return,  when  the  contracts  had  ex- 
pired. 

As  a  result  of  this  persistent  Industrial  warfare 
against  the  company,  many  large  orders  were  lost, 
and  the  business  of  the  company  was  seriously  dam- 
aged. 

To  restrain  the  continuance  of  these  acts  by  the  labor 
unions,  an  injunction  against  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  Its  officers  and  the  remaining  members  of 
the  council,  and  against  the  Electrotype  Molders'  and 
Finishers'  Union  Number  17,  was  asked  for  by  the 
company,  and  on  December  18,  1907,  one  of  the  most 
sweeping  orders  given  in  American  jurisprudence  was 
granted  by  Justice  Ashley  M.  Gould  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

This  Injunction  limited  the  activities  of  the  officers 
of  the  union  in  a  most  astounding  way,  restraining 
them  /row  ''interfering  in  any  manner  with  the  sale  of 
the  products  of  the  plaintiff,  and  from  declaring  or 
threatening  any  boycott  against  the  complainant,  or  in 
any  manner  assisting  such  boycott,  or  printing  or  dis- 
tributing through  the  mails  any  paper  which  contained 
any  reference  to  the  name  of  the  complainant,  its  busi- 
ness or  product  in  connection  with  the  term  'Unfair^ 
or  'We  Don't  Patronize'  list,  or  any  other  word  of 
similar  import,  or  from  publishing  or  otherwise  cir- 
culating, whether  in  writing  or  orally,  any  statement 
or  notice  of  any  kind  or  character  whatsoever,  calling 
attention  to  complainant' s  customers,  or  of  dealers  or 
tradesmen,  or  the  public,  to  any  boycott  against  the 


144  BOYCOTTS 

complainant,  or  from  coercing  or  inducing  any  dealer 
not  to  trade  with  complainant."^ 

The  injunction,  as  one  may  surmise  by  looking  over 
the  original  papers  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  was  written 
by  the  complainant's  lawyers,  and  signed  with  scarcely 
a  change  in  its  wording.  The  order  was  entered  De- 
cember 1 8,  1907,  and  the  next  day  the  opinion  was 
filed.  The  giving  of  the  undertaking  required  by  it 
was  consummated  December  23,  1907.  The  injunction 
was  made  permanent  by  Justice  Clabaugh,  March  26, 
1908. 

Thus,  for  the  first  time  in  the  existence  of  the  "We 
Don't  Patronize"  list,  the  Federation  found  itself  pre- 
vented from  placing  a  firm's  name  thereon.  This 
portion  relating  to  the  unfair  list  was  bitterly  assailed 
by  the  union,  but  not  so  much  so  as  those  paragraphs 
which  virtually  prohibited  the  officers  of  the  Federation 
from  orally  stating,  writing,  printing  or  distribut- 
ing any  word  which  in  any  way  referred  to  the 
fact  that  the  unions  had  decided  to  leave  Buck's 
stoves  alone. 

The  January  edition  of  the  American  Federationist 
contained  the  name  of  the  Buck's  Stove  firm  in  the 
"Unfair"  list,  and  advertised  the  printed  proceedings 
of  the  Norfolk  Convention  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  in 
which  the  firm  was  referred  to  as  under  the  ban  of  the 
boycott.  Ten  thousand  copies  of  the  proceedings  were 
hurriedly  printed  and  distributed  a  few  days  before  the 
injunction  was  to  go  into  effect,  and  some  copies,  it  was 
alleged,  were  in  the  mails  on  their  way  to  their  destina- 
tion, on  December  23,  the  day  the  injunction  became 
effective.  An  urgent  appeal  for  funds  was  also  dis- 
tributed to  all  of  the  local  unions  in  anticipation  of  the 
injunction.  The  name  of  the  Buck's  Stove  and  Range 
Company,  however,  was  stricken  from  the  February 
*  Italics  are  the  author's. 


THE    BUCK'S    STOVE    CASE  145 

number  of  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list  in  obedience 
to  the  order.  The  court's  mandate  was  also  printed 
in  the  February  issue,  and,  in  a  number  of  issues  fol- 
lowing, Gompers  edited  statements  declaring: 

"This  injunction  cannot  compel  union  men  or  their 
friends  to  buy  the  Buck's  stoves  and  ranges.  For  this 
reason  the  injunction  will  fail  to  bolster  up  the  busi- 
ness of  this  firm,  which  it  claims  is  so  swiftly  declin- 
ing." 

Speeches  were  also  made  by  Gompers  at  Indian- 
apolis and  Baltimore  mentioning  the  Buck's  Stove  Com- 
pany, and  criticising  the  injunction.  It  was  for  these 
remarkable  reasons  that  Judge  Wright  declared  Gomp- 
ers in  contempt  of  court,  December  23,  1908,  one 
year  after  the  order  had  been  issued.  For  taking  part 
in  the  preparation,  publication  and  distribution  of  the 
appeal  for  funds,  of  the  Norfolk  proceedings  and  of 
the  Federationist,  Frank  Morrison,  secretary  of  the 
A.  F.  of  L.,  was  also  pronounced  guilty  of  contempt. 

John  Mitchell  presided  at  the  convention  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  January  25,  1908, 
at  which  a  resolution  was  passed  that  "the  U.  M.  W.  of 
A.  place  the  Buck's  stoves  and  ranges  on  the  unfair 
list,  and  any  member  of  the  U.  M.  W.  of  A.  purchas- 
ing a  stove  of  above  may  be  fined  $5.00,  and,  failing  to 
pay  the  same,  be  expelled  from  the  organization." 
This  resolution  was  afterwards  printed  in  the  United 
Mine  Workers'  Journal  Mitchell  did  not  remember 
hearing  the  resolution  read,  but  could  not  deny  that  it 
was  passed  while  he  was  chairman,  so  he,  too,  was 
sentenced  for  contempt.  Gompers  was  sentenced  to 
one  year,  Mitchell  to  nine  months  and  Morrison  to  six 
months. 

Mr.  Gompers  thus  explains  the  seemingly  trivial 
reasons  for  the  court's  pronouncement : 


146  BOYCOTTS 

^'Because,  by  authority  of  the  convention  and  of  the 
Executive  Council,  I  sent  to  our  fellow  workers  and 
friends  an  appeal  for  funds  in  order  that  we  might  be 
in  a  position  to  defend  ourselves  before  the  courts  in 
the  very  injunction  case  involved;  because  in  lectures 
and  on  the  platform  during  the  presidential  campaign 
I  made  addresses  to  the  people,  giving  reasons  for  my 
vote  as  a  citizen  I  was  to  cast  at  the  then  pending  presi- 
dential election,  and  because  I  dared  write  an  editorial 
to  discuss  the  fundamental  principles  involved  not  only 
in  the  injunction  pending  but  the  entire  abuse  of  the 
injunction  writ;  aye,  because  I  published  iA  the  Amer- 
ican Federationist  the  order  of  the  court  to  show  why 
we  should  not  be  punished  for  contempt  of  the  injunc- 
tion, I  was  pronounced  in  contempt  of  court.*'^ 

During  the  contempt  proceedings  an  appeal  against 
Judge  Gould's  injunctive  order  had  been  made  by  the 
A.  F.  of  L.  at  the  behest  of  the  delegates  at  their 
Norfolk  Convention.  On  March  ii,  1909,  nearly 
three  months  after  the  contempt  sentences  had  been 
imposed,  Judge  Robb  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the 
District  of  Columbia  greatly  modified  Judge  Gould's 
injunction,  stating  that  the  court  had  power  only  to 
prevent  the  appearance  of  the  firm's  name  on  the  "We 
Don't  Patronize"  list,  and  to  restrain  the  actual  boy- 
cott. 

The  court  held : 

"The  printing  of  the  unfair  list  was  what  the  court 
sought  to  prevent,  and  what,  in  our  opinion,  the  court 
had  power  to  prevent.  But  the  decree  should  have 
stopped  there,  and  not  attempted  to  regulate  the  pub- 
lication and  distribution  of  other  matter  over  which 
the  court  had  no  control.  In  other  words,  this  branch 
of  the  decree  should  merely  prohibit  the  printing  of 
complainant,  its  business  or  product  in  the  'We  Don't 
Patronize'  or  'Unfair'  list  in  the  furtherance  of  the  boy- 
^  Annals  American  Academy,  v.  36,  pp.  261,  262,  September,  1910. 


THE    BUCK'S    STOVE    CASE  147 

cott.  When  the  conspiracy  Is  at  an  end  the  Federation 
will  have  the  same  right  that  any  other  association  or 
individual  now  has  to  comment  upon  the  relation  of 
the  complainant  with  the  employees." 

While  the  appeal  was  being  made  to  tone  down  the 
injunction,  the  contempt  case  was  also  brought  before 
the  higher  court,  and  on  November  2,  1909,  nearly 
eight  months  after  the  modification  of  the  injunction — 
which  practically  pronounced  legal  all  of  the  acts  of 
Gompers  and  his  associates — the  defendants  were 
again,  to  the  surprise  of  many,  declared  guilty.  Judge 
Van  Arsdel  rendered  the  decision.  The  court  con- 
cluded that  the  decree  of  the  lower  court  must  be  con- 
sidered conclusive  as  to  facts.  Chief  Justice  Shepard, 
however,  gave  a  strong  dissenting  opinion,  "convinced 
that  the  court  was  without  authority  to  make  the  only 
order  which  the  defendants  Gompers  and  Morrison 
can  be  said  to  have  disobeyed." 

A  writ  of  certiorari  was  then  asked  for,  so  that  the 
matter  might  be  brought  before  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States.  Injunction  and  contempt  cases  were 
finally  merged  into  one  before  the  Supreme  Court. 

The  following  year,  July  19,  19 10,  after  the  death 
of  J.  W.  Van  Cleave,  president  of  the  Buck's  Stove 
and  Range  Co.,  this  company  came  into  the  hands  of 
new  management,  and  the  loss  of  custom,  as  a  result 
of  the  boycott,  had  been  so  great,  that  those  then  in 
charge  decided  to  compromise  the  matter,  and  make 
peace  with  the  union.  The  Buck's  Stove  Company 
thereupon  appealed  for  the  support  of  organized  labor, 
on  account  of  the  friendliness  of  the  majority  stock- 
holder, Frederic  W.  Gardner,  and  on  account  of  the 
opposition  which  the  company  was  encountering  at  the 
hands  of  the  anti-trade  union  element,  as  a  result  of 
its  concessions.  The  settlement  was  heralded  In  the 
trade  union  press,  and  all  members  of  organized  labor 


148  BOYCOTTS 

were  requested  to  support  the  company.  The  follow- 
ing, appearing  in  the  American  Flint,  May,  191 1,  is  a 
sample  of  the  changed  attitude  of  labor: 

"For  over  twenty  years  Frederic  W.  Gardner,  the 
majority  stockholder,  has  been  on  friendly  terms  with 
the  officers  and  members  of  the  International  Molders' 
Union,  and  his  influence  during  his  long  connection 
with  the  stove  manufacturers'  industry  has  been  toward 
the  full  recognition  of  the  right  of  workmen  to  organ- 
ize for  their  self-protection  and  for  the, purpose  of 
entering  into  collective  bargains  with  their  employers. 
For  its  friendly  attitude  toward  organized  labor  the 
Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Company  has  now  encount- 
ered the  open  opposition  and  antagonism  of  the  anti- 
trade union  association,  who  evidently  are  desirous  of 
seeing  its  business  diminish  instead  of  prosper  under  its 
present  poHcy  of  trade  agreements  with  its  organized 
workmen." 


Soon  after  the  settlement,  C.  W.  Post,  the  well 
known  anti-trade  union  employer,  and  a  stockholder 
in  the  Buck's  Stove  Company,  tried  to  induce  Judge 
McPherson  to  issue  an  injunction  preventing  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  firm  and  of  labor  from  getting  to- 
gether, but  without  avail. 

As  employers  and  employees  in  this  firm  were  again 
on  friendly  terms,  the  Buck's  Stove  Company  was 
loth  to  continue  its  case  in  court,  and  on  January 
27,  191 1,  the  injunction  proceedings  were  dismissed  at 
the  request  of  the  complainant.  The  contempt  case, 
however,  was  continued,  and  on  May  15,  191 1,  the 
Supreme  Court  decided  that,  inasmuch  as  the  main  case 
— the  injunction  case — was  settled,  the  contempt  pro- 
ceedings depending  upon  it  were  also  necessarily  set- 
tled. These  proceedings  were  therefore  dismissed, 
but  without  prejudice  to  the  power  and  right  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia  to  punish 


THE    BUCK'S    STOVE    CASE  149 

by  a  proper  proceeding  any  contempt  committed 
against  it. 

It  was  thought  at  the  time  that  this  would  be  the 
last  of  this  case,  but  Justice  Wright  felt  that  the  court 
had  suffered  an  indignity  which  it  should  not  allow  to 
remain  unpunished.  Much  to  the  amazement  of  many 
of  the  public,  the  judge  appointed  a  committee  of  at- 
torneys, consisting  of  J.  J.  Darlington,  Daniel  Daven- 
port and  James  Beck,  three  men  who  had  been  con- 
spicuous as  attorneys  for  the  Anti-Boycott  and  Na- 
tional Manufacturers'  Associations  in  their  support  of 
the  Buck's  Stove  case,  to  consider  the  question  of  con- 
tempt, and  to  recommend  further  prosecution  or  dis- 
missal of  the  charges.  The  committee,  as  was  ex- 
pected, recommended  that  the  court  prosecute  the  offi- 
cers of  the  Federation.  The  court  acted  on  the  recom- 
mendation. The  defendants  urged  that  the  case  be 
dismissed,  on  the  ground  that  the  indictment  in  a  crim- 
inal proceeding  should  be  made  within  three  years  of 
its  commission,  but  the  motion  was  denied.  The  con- 
tempt proceeding,  it  was  decided,  was  of  a  civil  and 
not  a  criminal  nature. 

On  June  24,  19 12,  Judge  Wright  again  pronounced 
the  defendants  guilty,  four  of  the  judges  concurring. 
Chief  Justice  Clabaugh  being  ill  at  the  time.  For  a 
second  time  the  case  was  appealed,  and,  on  May  5, 
1913,  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia reduced  the  sentence  of  Samuel  Gompers  to  30  days 
in  jail,  and  remitted  the  jail  sentences  of  Mitchell  and 
Morrison,  imposing  fines  of  $500.  Chief  Justice  Shep- 
ard  again  dissented.  On  May  22  the  mandate  of  the 
court  was  stayed  to  permit  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  In  June,  19 13,  the  Su- 
preme Court  decided  to  review  the  case.  The  final  de- 
cision was  postponed  till  the  fall. 

The  boycott  against  this  concern  indicates  how  effec- 
tive such  a  weapon  can  be  made,  even  when  wielded 


I50  BOYCOTTS 

against  a  firm  selling  commodities  purchased  by  the 
workers  at  such  irregular  and  long  intervals,  providing 
the  forces  of  labor  properly  concentrate,  and  providing, 
also,  adequate  publicity  is  obtained.  It  is  difficult  to 
judge  whether  the  workmen  were,  from  a  technical 
legal  standpoint,  justified  in  beginning  the  dispute. 
Considering  the  broader  questions  involved,  however, 
one  is  inclined  to  the  belief  that  they  had  sufficient 
justification  for  their  activity.  That  occasionally  they 
abused  their  power  during  the  controversy,  seems 
likely,  but  such  abuse  of  power  certainly  had  its  counter- 
part in  that  of  at  least  some  of  the  eminent  judges  of 
our  federal  courts.  As  in  the  railroad  cases,  the  court 
decisions  gave  an  impetus  to  political  action,  although 
of  a  somewhat  different  nature  from  that  taken  in  the 
former  instance. 


CHAPTER    IX 

DANBURY    HAITERS'    AND   OTHER   CASES 

One  of  the  most  conspicuous  examples  of  boycotting 
in  this  country  carried  on  primarily  by  an  individual 
union,  and  one  of  fundamental  importance  from  a  legal 
standpoint,  was  the  Danbury  Hatters'  boycott,  orig- 
inating at  Danbury,  Connecticut. 

It  was  in  this  case  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  declared,  for  the  first  time,  that  boycotts 
could  be  reached  under  the  provisions  of  the  Sherman 
Anti-Trust  Law,  and  that  labor  unions,  found  guilty 
of  combining  to  limit  the  market  of  goods  transported 
from  one  state  to  another,  were  liable  for  the  payment 
,of  threefold  damages. 

The  hatters'  boycott  started  In  an  effort  to  unionize 
the  factory  of  D.  E.  Loewe  and  Company  of  Danbury, 
Conn.  Mr.  Loewe  refused  to  grant  the  demands  of 
the  unions  for  a  closed  shop,  and  the  Brotherhood  of 
United  Hatters  of  America  immediately  entered  on  a 
nation-wide  campaign  to  reduce  the  number  of  Loewe's 
customers. 

The  fight  against  this  concern  was  a  part  of  a  na- 
tional struggle  of  the  hatters'  union  for  the  closed  shop. 
President  John  Moffitt  of  the  International  Union  de- 
clared, in  his  convention  report  of  1903,  that  187  hat- 
ters' concerns  had  the  closed  shop,  while  but  12  were 
opposed  to  them.  The  fight  to  produce  these  results 
was  begun  in  1897.  According  to  the  Hatters*  Jour- 
nal of  September,   1898,   16  firms  were  unionized  as 

151 


152  BOYCOTTS 

a  result  of  the  use  of  the  boycott,  within  a  period  of 
1 8  months.  For  eleven  months  a  vigorous  boycott 
was  waged  against  Berg  and  Company  of  Orange, 
N.  J.,  at  the  cost  to  the  unions  of  $18,000.  Berg's 
business  was  reduced  from  one  of  2,400  dozen  hats  a 
week  to  one  of  from  450  to  500  dozen  hats,  according 
to  President  Moffitt,  before  he  agreed  to  the  closed 
shop.  In  April,  1901,  Roelof  and  Company  of  Phila- 
delphia were  especially  subjected  to  the  attention  of 
the  unionists,  and  $23,000  was  spent  by  the  union  in 
an  effort  to  diminish  its  sales.  It  was  estimated  that 
Roelof  lost  some  $250,000  during  the  boycotting 
period. 

Then  came  Loewe.  Unionists  claimed  that  in  many 
instances  he  gave  his  employees  but  one-half  of  that 
obtained  in  closed  shops,  and  that,  in  some  depart- 
ments, workers  secured  but  $13  a  week,  toiling  from 
12  to  15  hours  a  day,  whereas,  under  closed  shop  con- 
ditions, the  compensation  was  from  $22  to  $24  a  week, 
for  an  eight  hour  day.  This  state  of  affairs  was  largely 
denied,  however,  by  the  firm.  Whatever  the  actual 
conditions  were,  the  unionists  were  intent  on  unionizing 
the  shop.  They  proposed  this  to  Loewe,  referring  to 
the  fate  of  other  hatters  who  had  withstood  their  de- 
mands. Loewe,  however,  refused  to  concede.  On 
July  25,  1902,  two  hundred  and  fifty  employees  were 
called  out.  The  shipping  clerk  was  employed  by  the 
union  to  discover  the  destination  of  the  various  assign- 
ments. He  rode  on  the  wagons,  observed  in  the  streets 
and  at  railroad  stations,  and  reported  the  results  to  the 
union.  Customers'  names  were  immediately  sent  to  the 
unions  in  whose  towns  the  goods  were  to  be  delivered, 
and  unionists  were  requested  to  write  to,  or  call  on,  the 
dealers,  and  to  persuade  them  to  cease  their  dealings. 
Five  organizers  were  routed  among  unions  and  dealers 
in  different  parts  of  the  country.  Boycott  advertise- 
ments appeared  in  the  trade  and  labor  journals,  and 


I 


DANBURY  HATTERS'  CASE  153 

descriptions — false,  according  to  the  company — of 
labor  conditions  at  Loewe's  were  sent  broadcast. 

The  company  claimed  that  this  warfare  was  most 
effective;  that,  during  1901,  the  firm  made  a  net  profit 
of  $27,000,  which  decreased  into  a  $17,000  net  loss 
in  1902,  after  the  boycott  began,  and  into  one  of 
$15,000  during  1903.  In  1903,  the  company  claimed, 
the  loss  in  gross  business  from  seventeen  New  York 
firms  alone  was  $84,700,  from  26  other  customers, 
$160,690,  and  from  Triest,  a  California  jobber,  $80,- 
000,  making  a  total  of  $325,390;  that  the  loss  of  gross 
business  in  1902  was  much  less,  but  still  very  substan- 
tial. The  company  concluded  that  the  net  damage 
caused  by  the  boycott  amounted  to  more  than  $88,000. 
These  items,  the  company  declared,  did  not  take  into 
consideration  the  normal  increase  in  business  during 
the  years  1902  and  1903. 

Loewe  and  Company  first  filed  a  suit  against  the 
unions  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  at  Hartford, 
on  August  31,  1903,  charging  them  with  violating  the 
Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law.  Various  postponements  car- 
ried the  case  along  until  1907,  when  Judge  James  P. 
Piatt  of  the  Circuit  Court  asked  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  for  a  ruling  on  the  damage  clause 
of  the  Sherman  Law,  which  reads : 

"Section  7 — Any  person  who  shall  be  injured  in  his 
business  by  any  other  person  or  corporation  by  reason 
of  anything  forbidden  or  declared  to  be  unlawful  by 
this  act  may  sue  therefor  in  any  circuit  court  of  the 
United  States  in  the  district  in  which  the  defendant 
resides  or  is  found,  without  respect  to  the  amount  in 
controversy,  and  shall  recover  threefold  the  damages 
by  him  sustained,  and  the  costs  of  the  suit,  including  a 
reasonable  attorney's  fee." 

Chief  Justice  Fuller,  who  delivered  the  opinion  in 
this  case,  February  3,  1908,  declared  that  the  boycot- 


154  BOYCOTTS 

ting  case  came  within  the  statute  as  a  conspiracy  in 
restraint  of  trade  or  commerce  among  the  several 
states.  On  October  13,  1909,  the  case  was  brought  to 
trial. 

Over  200  witnesses  testified  for  the  defendants,  and 
the  trial  lasted  nearly  five  months.  In  his  charge  to 
the  jury,  Judge  Piatt,  overstepping  his  authority,  made 
the  astonishing  declaration  that  he  considered  it  his 
duty  to  direct  the  jury  to  bring  in  a  verdict  for  Loewe, 
and  he  asked  the  jurymen  to  consider  the  question  of 
damages  as  the  "only  question  with  which  they  could 
properly  concern  themselves,"  "It  is  your  duty  to  ac- 
cept as  the  law  of  this  case,"  continued  the  judge,  "that 
the  defendants  now  on  record  are  parties  to  a  combi- 
nation that  has  been  found  by  the  Supreme  Court  to 
form  a  valid  basis  in  this  suit." 

The  jury  retired,  and  shortly  afterwards  brought  in 
a  verdict  of  $74,000  damages  against  the  union.  This 
amount  was  trebled  under  the  triple  damage  provision 
in  the  Sherman  Law.  Adding  the  costs,  the  total  dam- 
ages finally  assessed  were  $232,240. 

The  case,  however,  did  not  stop  there.  It  was  ap- 
pealed to  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  Second 
Judicial  District,  on  a  writ  of  error,  and  on  April  10, 
191 1,  the  judgment  was  reversed  by  Judge  Lacombe, 
Judges  Cox  and  Noyes  concurring.  The  judges  de- 
clared that  Judge  Piatt  had  erred  in  taking  upon  him- 
self the  function  of  the  jury,  and  in  leaving  to  the 
jury  members  only  the  question  of  the  assessment  of 
damages;  also  in  his  assuming  that  mere  membership 
In  the  United  Hatters'  Association  made  a  unionist  re- 
sponsible'as  a  principal  for  all  illegal  actions  of  agents 
of  the  officers. 

The  court  said  in  part: 

"The  first  assignment  of  error  which  challenges  at- 
tention on  this  appeal,  and  which  is  discussed  at  the 


DANBURY  HATTERS'  CASE  155 

outset  of  defendant's  brief,  Is  the  action  of  the  trial 
judge  in  taking  the  case  from  the  jury  and  himself 
deciding  every  question  except  the  amount  of  damages. 
Defendants  contend  that  In  so  doing  the  trial  court 
assumed  the  function  of  the  jury  in  passing  upon  the 
credibility  of  witnesses  and  weighing  the  conflicting 
testimony.  We  think  the  assignment  of  error  Is  well 
taken  for  several  reasons. 

"It  Is  argued  here  that  because  an  Individual  defend- 
ant was  a  member  of  and  contributed  money  to  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  Hatters'  Association  that  made 
him  a  principal  of  any  and  all  agents  who  might  be  em- 
ployed by  its  officers  In  carrying  out  the  objects  of 
the  Association,  and  responsible  as  principals  If  such 
agents  used  illegal  methods  or  caused  illegal  methods 
to  be  used  In  undertaking  to  carry  out  those  objects. 

"We  cannot  assent  to  this  proposition.  The  clause 
of  the  constitution  of  the  United  Hatters  which  pro- 
vides that  certain  of  its  officers  shall  use  all  the  means 
in  their  power  to  bring  such  shops  (i.  e.,  non-union 
shops)  into  the  trade,  does  not  necessarily  Imply  that 
these  officers  shall  use  other  than  lawful  means  to  ac- 
complish such  objects.  Surely  the  fact  that  an  indi- 
vidual joins  an  association  having  such  a  clause  In  Its 
constitution  cannot  be  taken  as  expressing  assent  by 
him  to  the  perpetration  of  arson  or  murder.  Some- 
thing more  must  be  shown,  as,  for  instance,  with  the 
knowledge  of  the  members  unlawful  means  had  been 
so  frequently  used  with  the  express  tacit  approval  of 
the  association  that  Its  agents  were  warranted  In 
assuming  that  they  might  use  such  unlawful  means  In 
the  future;  that  Its  association  and  its  members  would 
approve  or  tolerate  such  use  whenever  the  end  sought 
to  be  obtained  might  best  be  obtained  thereby." 

An  unsuccessful  effort  was  then  made  to  have  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court  review  the  case,  In  Janu- 
ary, 191 2.  On  January  15  the  court  refused  the 
application  for  a  writ  of  certiorari. 

A  retrial  of  the  case  was  held  In  Connecticut,  be- 


156  BOYCOTTS 

ginning  August  4,  and  on  October  11,  19 12,  the  jury 
delivered  a  verdict  for  $80,000  and  costs.  The  total 
award  was  $240,000.  The  jury  took  the  position  that 
the  minutes,  resolutions,  reports,  proclamations  and 
printed  discussions  which  the  officers  and  agents  of  the 
association  publicly  proclaimed  and  circulated  among 
the  membership  were  approved  or  warranted  by  the 
Individual  members  of  the  association. 

The  case  was  again  appealed  to  the  Circuit  Court 
of  Appeals,  Second  Circuit,  and  is  scheduled  to  be 
reached  for  argument  in  the  fall  of  19 13.  The  deputy 
marshal  was  given  an  execution  under  the  judgment 
against  197  members  of  the  hatters^  unions  in  Bethel, 
Danbury  and  South  Norwalk.  January  24,  19 13,  he 
returned  an  execution  to  the  court,  with  the  indorse- 
ment that  he  had  been  unable  to  collect  even  a  cent 
from  the  hatters. 

The  question  of  the  justification  of  the  Danbury 
Hatters'  boycott  involves  the  larger  question  of  the 
right  and  wrong  of  the  closed  shop.  In  this  case,  also, 
some  abuses  were  probably  noted,  although  no  more 
than  are  generally  connected  with  any  extensive  labor 
controversy.  Here  again  the  court  decisions  have  un- 
doubtedly led  the  workers  to  emphasize,  more  than 
formerly,  the  advantages  of  political  action. 

The  typographical  union,  the  building  trades'  organi- 
zations, particularly  the  carpenters'  union  and  that  of 
the  miners,  have,  during  the  past  few  years,  also  fur- 
nished noteworthy  examples  of  thoroughly  planned  and 
effective  boycotts.  The  boycott  of  Butterick  patterns, 
first  carried  on  by  Typographical  Union  Number  Six, 
known  as  *'The  Big  Six,"  and  later  by  the  International 
Typographical  Union,  was  the  most  far-reaching  of 
those  initiated  by  that  organization.  *'This  boycott," 
affirmed  Mr.  Portenar,^  "was,  I  verily  believe,  better 

*  Portenar,  Problems  of  Organised  Labor,  p.  90. 


DANBURY  HATTERS'  CASE  157 

organized,  more  determined,  and  more  damaging  to 
the  parties  it  was  aimed  at  than  any  other  I  have 
knowledge  of,  not  excepting  that  against  the  Buck's 
Stove  and  Range  Company." 

The  fight  was  international,  being  maintained  in 
Cuba,  Germany  and  Austria,  as  well  as  in  the  United 
States  and  Canada.  The  printers  distributed  an  im- 
mense quantity  of  circulars  to  stores,  dressmakers,  or- 
ganized labor,  and  the  general  public;  sent  out  com- 
paratively expensive  novelties  calling  attention  to  the 
boycott,  routed  numbers  of  organizers  and  elaborated 
many  unique  plans — spending  thousands  of  dollars  to 
this  end.  It  is  believed  that  the  boycotting  campaign 
cut  considerably  into  the  profits  of  the  company,  despite 
the  fact  that  the  patterns  were  bought  for  the  most 
part  by  the  women  of  the  community.  Some  unionists 
claimed  that  the  Butterick  Company,  in  a  single  year, 
lost  $360,000,  and  was  compelled  to  reduce  its  divi- 
dends from  4%  to  2%  ;  that,  whereas  it  had  a  surplus 
before  the  agitation  of  from  $750,000  to  $1,000,000, 
soon  after  it  reported  one  of  only  a  quarter  of  a  mil- 
lion. The  pattern  business,  they  averred,  was  greatly 
diminished.  A  competing  concern  reported  an  aston- 
ishing increase  in  its  sales.  The  union  finally  won,  and 
the  ban  was  lifted. 

The  boycotts  of  the  carpenters  and  other  members 
of  the  building  trades  consist  primarily  in  threatened 
or  actual  withdrawal  of  labor  power,  instead  of  cus- 
tom, from  those  firms  refusing  to  stop  buying  from  cer- 
tain proscribed  concerns.  It  is  alleged  that  the  United 
Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  their  local  councils 
have  frequently  and  effectively  prevented  the  sales  of 
non-union  trim  and  other  building  material,  through 
threats  to  call  strikes  against  those  building  contractors 
who  handle  supplies  fashioned  by  "unfair"  companies. 
Unfair  lists,  circulars,  walking  delegates  are  also  used 
in  their  attacks.   City  carpenters  have  brought  to  their 


158  BOYCOTTS 

aid  joint  arbitration  agreements  with  the  Building 
Trades  Employers'  Association,  the  Master  Carpen- 
ters' Association  and  the  Manufacturing  Woodwork- 
ers' Association.  Through  these  agreements,  the  car- 
penters claim  that  they  have  succeeded  in  having  nearly 
a  million  dollars  of  their  trim  made  in  union  shops 
used  in  New  York  City  alone.  In  their  endeavor,  dur- 
ing a  period  of  25  years,  to  secure  the  closed  shop,  and 
to  work  only  on  union  material  with  union  workmen, 
this  brotherhood  spent  $1,179,776  pri^r  to  the  year 
1906,  according  to  Frank  Duffy,  its  secretary.^ 

The  carpenters'  and  the  typographical  unions  have 
been  interfered  with  by  court  proceedings  for  their 
alleged  boycotting  practices,  more,  perhaps,  than  any 
other  organization.  Among  the  latest  of  their  legal 
controversies  is  that  brought  in  a  number  of  states  by 
the  Paine  Lumber  Company  and  others  against  the 
New  York  carpenters,  before  the  United  States  Cir- 
cuit Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 
This  case  is  being  fought  vigorously  by  the  Anti-Boy- 
cott Association. 

One  of  the  best  known  of  the  labor  boycotts  in  re- 
cent years  occurred  during  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike 
of  1902.  The  miners  here  directed  their  chief  atten- 
tion to  the  "scabs"  who  took  their  places.  They  threat- 
ened storekeepers,  who  sold  goods  to  xhese  "scabs," 
with  loss  of  the  patronage  of  the  strikers;  compelled 
a  school  board  to  dismiss  a  school  mistress  because  her 
brother,  not  living  in  her  immediate  family,  went  to 
work  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  striking  miners; 
caused  the  dismissal  of  a  drug  clerk  because  his  father 
was  a  "scab,"  and  performed  many  similar  acts.  These 
acts  were  vigorously  condemned  by  Mr.  John  Mitchell, 
then  president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  Amer- 
ica, and  declared  by  the  Strike  Commission  as  "cruel 

1  Convention    Proceedings,    United    Brotherhood    of    Carpenters, 
1906,  p.  159. 


DANBURY  HATTERS'  CASE  159 

and  cowardly,"  and  "outside  the  pale  of  civilized 
war."^  The  boycotts  among  the  miners  were  pri- 
marily labor  boycotts — boycotts  conducted  by  work- 
ers against  fellow  laborers. 

The  foregoing  boycotts  prosecuted  by  the  hatters, 
members  of  the  building  trade,  printers  and  miners 
have  proved,  for  the  most  part,  effective  means  of 
cutting  off  the  market  or  the  employment  of  the  boy- 
cotted. Some  of  the  worst  abuses  were  alleged  in  con- 
nection with  the  labor  boycotts  organized  by  the  min- 
ers— abuses  acknowledged  and  condemned  by  the  re- 
sponsible heads  of  organized  labor. 

^  Report  of  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission,  pp.  'JT,  78. 


CHAPTER   X 

ELEMENTS   OF   SUCCESS   IN   BOYCOTTS 

The  success  which  attends  the  use  of  boycotts  and 
the  consequent  frequency  of  such  use  in  different  indus- 
tries depend  on  many  factors.  A  chief  factor  is  the 
character  of  the  market  for  the  article — whether  the 
market  consists  primarily  of  unionists  and  sympathizers 
or  of  the  employing  class.  Bread,  newspapers,  hats, 
cigars,  beer,  stoves,  shoes  and  other  necessities  and 
inexpensive  luxuries  have  been  very  frequently  and 
effectively  boycotted.  Thus,  of  the  196  boycotts  de- 
scribed in  Bradstreefs,  157,  or  80%,  center  around 
necessities. 

The  boycotting  of  food  products  held  the  most  prom- 
inent place  in  the  New  York  boycotts  of  the  eighties 
and  nineties  and  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  indorsements. 
Bread,  the  most  important  of  the  foods,  was  subject 
to  three  times  as  many  attacks  as  any  other  product  in 
the  New  York  boycotts.  Cigars,  beer,  and  meats 
were  prominent  in  most  of  the  investigated  cases.  In 
the  early  boycotts  newspapers,  another  inexpensive 
necessity,  were  most  frequently  mentioned  among  the 
proscribed  commodities.  Articles  of  clothing  held  first 
place  in  frequency  in  the  nation-wide  boycotts  of  the 
eighties  and  third  place  in  the  New  York  boycotts  and 
in  those  cited  on  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list. 

Success  followed  fairly  closely  along  the  same  lines. 
Thus  the  most  successful  boycotts  in  New  York,  with 
the  exception  of  the  building  trades,  were  connected 

160 


SUCCESS  IN  BOYCOTTS  i6i 

with  the  food  boycotts,  those  against  bread  showing 
the  largest  per  cent,  of  victories.  Boycotts  against 
articles  of  clothing  were  also  generally  attended  with 
considerable  success.  In  the  instances  noted  by  Brad- 
street's^  the  ban  against  cigars  was  attended  by  the 
greatest  proportion  of  victories,  while  the  use  of  this 
weapon  against  "unfair"  newspapers,  hats,  beer,  etc., 
resulted  in  many  conspicuous  gains. 

On  the  other  hand,  commodities  which  are  sold  pri- 
marily to  the  upper  middle  and  the  employing  classes 
are  generally  let  alone.  Dealers  in  such  articles  certify 
that  they  have  oftentimes  been  benefited  by  the  boycott, 
as  their  well-to-do  patrons  have  come  to  their  rescue 
and  have  frequently  increased  their  orders  on  account 
of  union  opposition. 

Furthermore,  the  success  of  boycotts  depends  some- 
what on  whether  the  articles  boycotted  are  purchased 
by  men  or  by  women.  It  is  unusual  for  the  women  of 
the  family  to  feel  the  keenness  of  the  trade  union  strug- 
gle, and  to  recognize  the  utility  of  inconveniencing 
themselves  in  order  that  other  workers  might  be  as- 
sisted thereby.  Allied  associations  now  being  formed 
among  the  women,  however,  are  making  them  more 
interested  than  heretofore  in  the  problems  of  organized 
labor,  and  more  willing  to  sacrifice,  if  need  be,  in  their 
purchasings.  Typographical  Union  No.  6,  of  New 
York,  recently  stated  that  the  women  had  waged  quite 
an  effective  battle  against  Butterick  patterns. 

If  the  articles  boycotted  are  not  sold  directly  to  the 
mass  of  working  people,  but  to  employers,  a  strong 
organization  among  the  employees  of  such  purchasers 
may  render  a  boycott  successful.  The  threat  of  the 
solidly  organized  brewery  workers  to  strike,  should 
their  employers  continue  to  purchase  non-union  bar- 
rels and  boilers,  has  time  and  again  forced  the  unioniz- 
ing of  a  shop.  The  decision  of  the  powerful  building 
trades  unions  to  refuse  to  work  on  materials  bought 


1 62  BOYCOTTS 

from  non-union  mills,  has  been  the  means  of  boycotting 
effectively  the  opponents  of  organized  labor. 

The  frequency  and  regularity  of  the  consumption  of 
an  article  are  also  important.  ''If  it  is  an  article  which 
enters  into  daily  consumption,"  declares  the  report  of 
the  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor  in  New  York,^  "and 
is  of  such  a  character  that  it  can  be  made  the  subject  of 
ordinary  conversation,  it  will  soon  force  the  employer 
to  spend  money  in  advertising  it,  in  order  to  counteract 
the  silent  influence  of  the  boycott."  boycotts,  how- 
ever, waged  against  such  articles  as  stoves  have  some- 
times proved  successful  when  all  the  forces  of  labor 
actively  cooperate  on  a  national  scale. 

If  the  boycotts  are  of  a  local  nature,  and  the  trade 
of  the  boycotted  firm  is  also  for  the  most  part  in  the 
surrounding  neighborhood,  the  character  of  the  popu- 
lation in  the  locality  of  the  firm  affects,  to  a  consider- 
able extent,  the  result  of  the  boycott.  A  bakery  or 
meat  market  in  a  working  class  neighborhood,  where 
goodly  numbers  of  the  population  are  either  mem- 
bers of  unions  or  sympathizers,  will  feel  the  efforts  of 
the  boycotters  much  more  seriously  than  one  situated 
in  a  middle  class  or  well-to-do  neighborhood. 

The  strength  and  capital  of  the  boycotted  firm,  and 
the  nation-wide  character  of  its  sales,  are  further  ele- 
ments. One  soap  firm  with  a  business  in  every  state 
declared  that  the  idea  of  a  boycott  against  his  firm 
yielding  large  results  was  "a  phantom  of  the  imagina- 
tion." An  effective  boycott  against  such  articles  entails 
an  extensive  campaign,  costing  thousands  of  dollars. 
If  the  goods  are  sold  in  a  few  communities,  however, 
it  is  possible  for  a  small  number  of  organizers,  concen- 
trating attention  thereon,  to  do  most  telling  work. 
The  ability  of  firms  with  a  big  capital  to  withstand  a 
boycott  has  been  pointed  out. 

^  Third  Annual  Report,  New  York  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor, 
1885,  p.  334. 


SUCCESS  IN  BOYCOTTS  163 

The  extent  to  which  the  boycotted  firm  is  a  monopoly 
also  vitally  affects  the  success  of  the  boycott,  for  if  it  is 
difficult  or  impossible  for  the  public  to  obtain  the  dupli- 
cate of  the  goods  manufactured  by  the  boycotted  con- 
cern, the  purchasers  are  loath  to  join  the  crusade  of 
boycotting,  especially  when  the  article  is  considered  a 
necessity.  If,  for  instance,  the  refusal  to  patronize  the 
Standard  Oil  Company  or  the  so-called  "Meat  Trust" 
makes  it  incumbent  on  one  to  give  up  the  purchase  of 
oil  or  meat,  it  is  usually  difficult  to  induce  those  regu- 
larly using  such  commodities  to  be  enthusiastic  about 
the  "Cause." 

The  unions  have  concluded  that  one  of  the  greatest 
elements  in  the  success  of  a  boycott  is  the  degree  in 
which  the  efforts  of  the  entire  labor  body  are  concen- 
trated on  one  or  more  important  firms,  A  reading  of 
the  minutes  of  the  Convention  Proceedings  of  the  A. 
F.  of  L.  makes  this  most  evident.  The  method  of 
procedure  in  the  Buck's  Stove  boycott  was  in  hne  with 
the  policy  of  concentration  adopted  by  the  unions. 

As  in  other  lines,  the  amount  of  favorable  publicity 
2l  boycott  can  secure  counts  for  its  success.  One  labor 
leader  told  the  writer  that  it  was  doubtful  whether  the 
Buck's  Stove  Company  would  have  suffered  materially 
had  it  not  been  for  the  legal  proceedings  against  the 
A.  F.  of  L.  and  its  officers,  and  the  consequent  publicity 
obtained  by  the  unionists  in  the  non-labor  press.  The 
unions  endeavor  to  advertise  their  boycotts  in  the  vari- 
ous national  and  international  journals  in  the  labor 
press  through  the  secretaries  of  the  trade  unions  and 
through  circulars.  Unless  something  of  a  particularly 
striking  or  unusual  character  occurs  in  the  course  of  the 
boycott,  the  public  at  large,  however,  rarely  hears  of 
its  existence  through  the  medium  of  the  daily  press. 

Another  important  consideration  is  the  character  of 
the  distinguishing  mark  on  the  goods.  Where  boy- 
cotted hats,  for  instance,   fail  to  carry  the  name  or 


1 64  BOYCOTTS 

any  other  mark  of  the  maker  inside,  but  bear  the  in- 
signia of  the  jobbers  or  the  retailers,  it  is  far  more 
difficult  to  trace  the  goods,  and  to  diminish  sales.  One 
of  the  reasons  set  forth  for  the  failure  of  the  miners 
to  boycott  coal  is  the  extreme  difficulty  in  tracing  coals 
mined  in  certain  sections. 

The  character  of  the  competition  is  still  another 
factor.  When  competitors  are  contractors  of  prison 
made  goods,  for  instance,  and  the  customer  is  given 
the  alternative  of  purchasing  prison  ma^e  or  "unfair" 
goods,  he  is  likely  to  choose  the  latter,  despite  the  ban.^ 

The  directness  of  the  boycotting  attacks  vitally  af- 
fects the  result.  At  times  citizens  have  been  boycotted 
for  purchasing  goods  from  stores  whose  owners  rode 
in  trolley  cars  during  a  car  strike.  However,  such 
boycotts  soon  subside.  Tertiary  boycotts  do  exist,  but 
they  generally  become  weaker  in  proportion  as  they 
become  more  remote. 

That  the  causes  leading  to  the  boycott  have  a  con- 
siderable effect  on  its  success  is  claimed  by  some.  Thus 
the  Commissioner  of  Labor  in  Illinois  wrote: 

"Labor  organizations  sometimes  recognize  and  in- 
sist upon  the  enforcement  of  moral  and  social  laws  not 
recognized  by  society  at  large,  and  boycotts  based  upon 
these  reach  no  further  than  the  organizations  uphold- 
ing the  assumed  law.  Boycotts  based  upon  the  em- 
ployment of  non-union  men  rarely  succeed,  because 
society  is  not  prepared  to  assist  either  in  driving  men 
into  unions  or  out  of  employment.  During  the  first 
street  car  strike  in  Chicago  the  strikers  appealed  to 
the  public  not  to  patronize  the  companies  for  reasons 
given.  In  this  case  the  people  recognized  an  infrac- 
tion of  social  laws,  the  maintenance  of  which  was  of 
more  importance  for  the  time  than  the  social  need  of 
street  cars,  and  consequently  refused  to  ride  upon  them. 
On  the  occasion  of  a  subsequent  strike  a  similar  appeal 

1  Report  of  Illinois  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor,  1886,  pp.  447- 
448. 


SUCCESS  IN  BOYCOTTS  165 

was  made  by  the  strikers,  based  upon  other  grounds 
not  considered  vaUd  by  society  at  large,  and  the  boycott 
failed." 

Thus  all  of  the  eight  boycotts  waged  against  prison 
made  goods  were  wholly  successful  in  that  state;  99% 
of  those  engaged  in  disputes  against  the  reduction  of 
wages  were  successful,  while  proportionally  fewer  boy- 
cotts initiated  for  other  purposes  were  won.  When 
the  boycotters  depend  for  their  support  primarily 
on  organized  labor,  the  cause  of  the  boycott  be- 
comes less  important.  The  appeal  is  usually  made  to 
the  members  of  organized  labor  on  the  bare  ground 
that  the  firm  boycotted  has  been  "unfair"  to  labor. 
Nothing  more  is  said;  nothing  more  is  asked.  It  may 
be  stated  that  the  A.  F.  of  L.  has  appealed  to  the 
members  more  directly,  and  has  expended  much  less 
energy  in  endeavoring  to  reach  the  general  public  than 
did  its  forerunner  in  the  labor  field,  the  Knights  of 
Labor. 

The  vi^or  with  which  the  boycott  is  pushed  at  the 
very  outset,  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  methods  em- 
ployed during  the  first  few  weeks,  determine,  to  a  very 
large  extent,  its  ultimate  outcome.  It  has  been  seen 
that  a  large  proportion  of  those  local  boycotts  which 
succeeded  came  to  a  termination  within  a  few  weeks. 
The  longer  they  drag  on,  the  more  lukewarm  become 
their  supporters,  and  the  more  able  are  their  victims 
to  cope  with  them. 

The  attitude  of  the  law,  of  course,  is  of  prime  im- 
portance. Comparatively  few  of  the  unionists  are 
enthusiastic  about  engaging  in  a  boycotting  campaign, 
if  the  law  declares  that  their  actions  are  illegal,  and  if 
they  may,  at  any  time,  be  brought  face  to  face  with 
civil  or  criminal  procedure. 

Finally,  it  may  be  said  that  the  more  thorough  the 
deliberation  of  the  organization  before  employing  this 


1 66  BOYCOTTS 

device,  and  the  greater  the  discrimination  used,  the 
more  powerful  is  the  boycott  likely  to  be  when  re- 
sorted to. 

We  see  then  that  among  the  factors  determining 
the  success  of  the  boycott  are  the  character  of  the 
market  of  the  commodities  boycotted,  the  strength  of 
the  organization  boycotting,  the  frequency  and  regu- 
larity with  which  the  article  is  purchased,  the  location 
of  the  firm  boycotted,  its  capital,  nation-wide  extent  of 
trade,  and  the  degree  of  monopoly.  The  manner  in 
which  the  unionist  concentrates  on  one  firm,  the  pub- 
licity secured,  the  ease  with  which  the  boycotted  goods 
are  distinguished,  the  character  of  the  competition 
against  the  firm,  the  directness  of  boycotting  attacks, 
the  causes  leading  to  the  institution  of  the  boycott,  the 
vigor  with  which  it  is  pushed  at  the  very  outset,  the 
care  used  in  its  inauguration,  and  the  attitude  of  the 
law  are  all  factors. 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  primarily  the  social 
and  economic  aspects  of  the  boycott,  and  have  seen 
that  during  the  last  generation  it  has  played  a  no  mean 
role  in  the  labor  movement,  frequently  proving  most 
effective  in  obtaining  more  wholesome  labor  conditions. 
Let  us  now  examine  the  legal  status  of  this  trade  union 
activity. 


'Vv, 


PART   II 
LEGAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE  BOYCOTT 


CHAPTER   XI 

SOME   BOYCOTT    LAWS   AND   DECISIONS 

Having  considered  the  extent  to  which  boycotts  have 
been  resorted  to  in  the  United  States,  as  well  as  their 
effectiveness,  let  us  investigate  the  attitude  of  the  law 
toward  their  various  manifestations. 

Briefly  it  may  be  stated  that  negative  boycotts,  prose- 
cuted primarily  by  means  of  the  union  label,  are  un- 
questionably legal.  Of  the  positive  forms,  primary 
boycotts  have  met  with  little  opposition  from  courts. 
Secondary  and  compound  boycotts,  however,  are,  in 
this  country,  generally  condemned  by  judicial  decision 
and  statute  law.  They  have  been  pronounced  legal  in 
some  of  the  foreign  countries,  however,  and  have  re- 
cently secured  the  favor  of  a  number  of  courts  and 
state  legislatures,  while  in  the  national  government  an 
increasing  number  of  representatives  each  year  are 
agitating  for  their  legalization. 

Legality  of  Negative  Boycotts 

The  legality  of  the  union  label  Is  no  longer  ques- 
tioned. In  1 89 1  Justice  Williams  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Pennsylvania,  to  be  sure,  declared  that,  as 
the  unions  did  not  own  the  product,  they  could  not 
place  a  label  on  goods  made  by  their  members. 
The  Minnesota  Courts  In  a  cigar  maker's  case 
also  held  ^   that  the  unions  had  no  redress  In  cases 

*  Mitchell,  Organised  Labor,  p.  296. 
169 


I70  BOYCOTTS 

of  counterfeiting,  as  they  had  no  property  right 
in  the  results  of  their  labor.  These  decisions  were  re- 
affirmed in  other  courts.  The  complete  right  to  use 
and  protect  the  label  is,  however,  now  universally  rec- 
ognized. In  fact,  according  to  Dr.  Ernest  R.  Spedden, 
"in  1908,  laws  for  the  registration  and  protection  of 
trade  union  labels  were  in  force  in  forty-one  states  and 
territories."  ^  These  laws  provide  for  the  registration 
of  labels  with  one  of  the  state  officers  on  the  payment 
of  a  small  fee,  and  also  make  the  counterfeiting  of  the 
labels  a  misdemeanor. 

The  Interstate  Commerce  Law  and  the  Sherman 
Anti-Trust  Law 

While  negative  boycotting  has  been  left  free  from 
legal  interruption,  the  positive  boycott  has  generally 
been  declared  illegal  under  both  federal  and  state  stat- 
utes. The  two  prominent  statutes  which  have  been  in- 
terpreted as  applying  to  boycotts  are  the  Interstate 
Commerce  and  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Laws. 

The  first  of  these,  passed  February  2,  1887,  ^"^ 
amended  frequently  since  then,  made  it  a  misdemeanor 
(Sec.  10)  for  any  person  employed  to  interfere  with 
interstate  transportation.  This  act  came  to  be  applied 
more  and  more  to  railroad  employees.  The  power 
bestowed  upon  the  government  over  the  railroads  by 
this  act  gave  countenance  to  the  theory  that  the  court 
of  equity  could  step  in  at  any  time  necessity  required, 
and  prevent,  by  the  injunction  process,  any  interference 
with  the  property  right  of  the  government  in  the 
transportation  system. 

The  second  act,  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law,  has 
recently  been  applied  with  telling  effect  against  this 
form  of  trade  union  activity.  This  law  was  passed 
July  2,    1890.      Under  it    (Sec.    i)    "every  contract, 

1  Spedden,  The  Trade  Union  Label,  p.  97. 


BOYCOTT  LAWS  AND  DECISIONS     171 

combination  In  the  form  of  trust  or  otherwise,  or  con- 
spiracy In  restraint  of  trade  or  commerce  among  the 
several  states  or  with  foreign  nations"  Is  declared  Il- 
legal, and  the  one  Inflicting  Injury  on  another  through 
a  violation  of  this  act  Is  made  (Sec.  7)  to  pay  three- 
fold damages.  The  power  of  Injunction  Is  thereby 
also  greatly  extended  to  judges  of  the  circuit  courts. 
That  this  law  was  framed  primarily  against  indus- 
trial combinations,  and  that  Its  authors  did  not  mean 
to  include  labor  unions  within  Its  scope  was  the  belief 
of  organized  labor  at  the  time  of  Its  passage.  Samuel 
Gompers,  president  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  declares : 

*'We  know  the  Sherman  Law  was  intended  by  Con- 
gress to  punish  illegal  trusts  and  not  labor  unions,  for 
we  had  various  conferences  with  the  members  of  Con- 
gress while  the  Sherman  act  was  pending,  and  remem- 
ber clearly  that  such  a  determination  was  stated  again 
and  again."^ 

He  again  contends  that  an  amendment  to  the  act, 
which  specifically  excluded  labor  unions  and  agricul- 
turists from  its  provisions,  was  approved  at  different 
times  by  large  majorities  of  both  the  senate  and  the 
house,  but  owing  to  the  senate  committee's  neglect  to 
register  the  wish  of  these  bodies,  the  amendment  was 
not  Included  in  the  original  bill. 

President  Gompers  avers  that  on  March  25,  1890,^ 
Sherman  offered  a  proviso  at  the  end  of  the  first  sec- 
tion of  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee  on  finance, 
exempting  labor  unions,  stating,  as  he  did  so : 

'T  take  this  provision  from  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  Senator  from  Mississippi.  I  do  not  think  It 
necessary,  but  at  the  same  time,  to  avoid  any  confusion, 
I  submit  It  to  come  In  at  the  end  of  the  first  section: 
Provided  that  this  act  shall  not  be  construed  to  any 
arrangements,  agreements  or  combinations  between  the 

1  American  Federationist,  March,  1910,  p.  202. 

2  Ibid.,  1908,  p.  187. 


172  BOYCOTTS 

laborers  made  with  a  view  of  lessening  the  number  of 
hours  of  labor  or  the  increase  of  their  wages.  Nor 
any  arrangements,  agreements  or  combinations  among 
persons  engaged  in  horticulture  or  agriculture  made 
with  the  view  of  enhancing  the  price  of  their  own  agri- 
cultural or  horticultural  products." 

This  proposed  amendment,  Mr.  Gompers  declared, 
was  discussed  in  a  committee  of  the  whole  house  by 
Senators  Plumb,  Sherman,  Ingalls,  Teller,  Yurpee,  and 
Blair,  and  agreed  to  by  them.  , 

The  discussion  ended  that  day.  The  next  day, 
March  26,   1890,  Senator  Stewart  of  Nevada,  said: 

"The  original  bill  has  been  very  much  improved, 
and  one  of  the  great  objections  has  been  removed  from 
it  by  the  amendments  offered  by  Senator  Sherman, 
which  relieves  the  class  of  persons  who  would  have 
been  first  prosecuted  under  the  original  bill  without 
the  amendment.  I  am  very  much  gratified  that  the 
Senator  offered  the  amendment,  and  that  the  Senate 
adopted  it.  The  bill  ought  now  in  some  respects  to  be 
satisfactory  to  every  person  who  is  opposed  to  the 
oppression  of  labor,  and  desires  to  see  it  properly  re- 
warded." 

The  following  day.  Senator  Sherman,  when  the 
amendment  was  reached,  mistaking  this  amendment  for 
another  one,  called  the  attention  of  the  senate  to  it. 
Discussion  ensued,  in  which  opposition  on  the  part  of 
one  senator  was  evinced,  and  when  the  bill  was  next 
reported  by  the  judiciary  committee  to  which  it  was 
referred,  the  amendment  did  not  appear.  Mr.  Gomp- 
ers said  that  he  and  others  were  doubtful  as  to  whether 
they  should  allow  the  bill  to  pass  without  opposition, 
but,  on  being  assured  that  it  would  not  be  used  as  a 
boomerang  against  labor,  did  nothing  more  concern- 
ing it. 

Those  who  believe  that  Congress  intended  to  bring 


BOYCOTT  LAWS  AND  DECISIONS     173 

organized  labor  within  the  inclusion  of  the  act  make 
much  of  the  fact  that  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the 
Senate,  in  their  reported  bill,  omitted  any  mention  of 
labor  unions.  However,  no  conclusion  can  logically 
be  adduced  from  this  fact,  inasmuch  as  the  entire  act 
which  originally  included  any  agreement  to  increase 
prices,  was  revised  by  the  committee  and  greatly  nar- 
rowed in  its  scope.  Is  it  unreasonable  to  suppose, 
contends  labor,  that,  after  thus  narrowing  the  scope  of 
the  act,  the  Committee  were  of  the  opinion  that  it 
would  not  be  applied  to  any  except  organizations  of 
capital,  and  for  this  reason  •  omitted  the  exemption 
clause? 

Some  time  later,  Mr.  Gompers  averred,  a  provision 
similar  to  the  proposed  amendment  was  passed  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  by  an  overwhelming  vote, 
but  as  the  session  closed  shortly  afterwards  it  did  not 
become  a  law.  The  separate  approval  of  this  amend- 
ment by  both  houses,  and  the  assurance  by  the  senators 
and  congressmen  of  the  harmless  nature  of  the  bill,  as 
far  as  labor  was  concerned,  demonstrated,  according 
to  Mr.  Gompers,  that  the  legislators  did  not  intend  to 
include  labor  unions  within  the  scope  of  the  law. 

The  declaration  some  ten  years  later  on  the  floor 
of  Congress  of  Senator  Hoar,  who  claimed  to  be  the 
real  father  of  the  bill,  that  he  had  no  intention  of  bring- 
ing the  law  to  bear  against  labor  unions,  is  also  cited  as 
a  proof  of  labor's  contention.  Other  publicists  take  a 
similar  position.  Mr.  F.  J.  Stimson  declares  that  "it 
is  probable  that  Congress,  when  it  passed  this  statute, 
also  had  in  mind  only  such  combinations  among  em- 
ployers and  purchasers."  ^  However,  he  believed  that, 
if  an  exemption  clause  had  been  placed  therein,  the  act 
might  not  have  been  held  constitutional. 

Two  other  federal  statutes  relating  to  conspiracies 
against  the  United  States  (Sec.  5440  of  Rev.  St.,  as 
^  Stimson,  Handbook  to  the  Labor  Law  of  the  United  States,  p.  337. 


174  BOYCOTTS 

amended,  1879),  ^^^^  against  citizens  of  the  country 
(Sec.  5508,  Rev.  St.)?  have  also  been  applied  to  boy- 
cott cases. 

State  Legislation  and  the  Boycott 

While  only  five  states,  at  present  writing,  prohibit 
the  boycott  by  name,  over  two-thirds  (33)  of  the  states 
make  illegal  one  or  more  forms,  under  statutes  relating 
to  ''Conspiracy,"  ''Coercion,"  "Intimidation,"  "Inter- 
ference with  Employment,"  and  "Enticing  Employees." 
Two  legislatures  have  rendered  boycotts  non-action- 
able, as  far  as  criminal  prosecution  is  concerned,  while 
eight  have  apparently  no  statutes  which  can  be  con- 
strued as  preventing  boycotting. 

The  five  states  of  the  union  where  boycotts  are 
definitely  prohibited  by  name  are  Alabama,  Colorado, 
Illinois,  Indiana  and  Texas.  In  Indiana,  Colorado  and 
Alabama  boycotting  is  prohibited  even  though  it  is 
indulged  in  by  but  one  person.  In  Indiana  any  ar- 
rangement to  prevent  a  sale  is  considered  illegal.  Ala- 
bama and  Colorado  forbid  the  printing  or  circulating 
of  any  notice  of  boycott,  while  Alabama  also  prohibits 
a. mere  declaration  that  a  boycott  exists.  The  last 
named  state  also  makes  illegal  the  intimidation  of  any 
person  in  his  occupation,  and  likewise  a  conspiracy  of 
two  or  more  to  interfere  with  one  in  his  business. 
Colorado  adds  a  section  preventing  picketing  for  the 
purpose  of  inducing  one  not  to  work  for  or  trade  with 
another. 

Two  states,  Texas  and  Illinois,  forbid  boycotting 
only  when  it  involves  a  combination.  The  former 
state  does  not  allow  a  combination  for  the  purpose 
of  refusing  to  purchase  goods,  while  the  latter  con- 
demns one  whose  object  it  is  to  issue  or  distribute  cir- 
culars in  furtherance  of  a  boycott.  Under  other  clauses, 
Texas  prohibits  a  group  from  assembling  for  the  pur- 


BOYCOTT  LAWS  AND  DECISIONS     175 

pose  of  interfering  with  the  employment  of  another, 
while  a  combination  to  intimidate  or  interfere  with 
business  by  unlawful  means  is  forbidden  by  the  Illinois 
law. 

On  the  other  hand,  two  states,  Maryland  and  Cali- 
fornia, have  made  it  possible  to  boycott  without  fear 
of  criminal  proceedings,  by  declaring  that  a  deed  which 
is  innocent  if  done  by  one  shall  not  be  indictable  if  the 
result  of  the  agreement  of  two  or  more.  California 
adds  that  such  an  act  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  an 
injunction,  although  it  specifically  legislates  against 
the  use  of  force,  violence  or  threats. 

Nine  of  the  states  have  passed  laws  against  inter- 
ference with  the  property  or  business  of  another  and 
against  intimidation  of  another's  employees  by  force, 
threats  or  violence.  These  are :  Connecticut,  Minne- 
sota, New  York,  North  Dakota,  Oklahoma,  Oregon, 
Rhode  Island,  South  Dakota  and  Wisconsin.  In  Min- 
nesota a  conspiracy  of  two  or  more  must  be  proved. 
Of  the  foregoing.  New  York,  North  Dakota  and  Wis- 
consin also  have  laws  against  "conspiracies"  to  injure 
business  maliciously  or  by  force,  while  certain  injuries 
are  also  forbidden  under  other  sections.  "Intimida- 
tion of  Employees,"  "Interference  with  Employment," 
"Intimidation  of  Employers  and  Employees,"  "Coer- 
cion," are  among  the  headings  of  the  laws  which  aim 
to  prevent  various  kinds  of  boycotts  in  these  states. 

Four  states — Iowa,  Kansas,  Kentucky  and  Nevada 
— have  provisions  only  against  the  injury  of  business 
by  certain  specified  means.  In  three  of  the  states, 
Iowa,  Kansas  and  Nevada,  a  combination  is  essential 
to  their  illegality.  The  "illegal"  conspiracy  is  con- 
demned in  Nevada,  and  the  "malicious"  conspiracy, 
in  Iowa.  Kansas,  furthermore,  has  a  statute  against 
obstructing  business  by  intimidation.  Kentucky's  pro- 
hibitive law  is  under  the  general  title  of  "Coercion." 

In  eleven  states  it  is  primarily  the  intimidation  of 


176  BOYCOTTS 

employees,  the  labor  boycott,  which  the  legislature  has 
declared  illegal.  These  states  are:  Florida,  Georgia, 
Maine,  Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Mississippi,  Mis- 
souri, New  Hampshire,  Utah,  Vermont  and  Washing- 
ton. In  three  of  the  foregoing  states — Florida,  Mis- 
sissippi and  Washington — there  must  be  a  conspiracy 
of  two  or  more  to  render  the  act  illegal.  These  acts 
are  entitled  "Conspiracy  against  Workingmen." 
Washington  also  has  a  separate  statute  against  the 
"Coercion  of  Workmen"  by  depriving  them  of  tools. 
In  New  Hampshire  "to  Interfere  In  any  way  with  the 
lawful  business  of  another"  Is  Illegal.  All  of  the 
other  states  under  this  division  make  threats,  force  or 
violence  a  necessary  element  In  the  crime. 

Except  the  provisions  other  than  those  against  the 
enticing  of  a  servant  to  break  his  contract,  nothing  that 
relates  directly  or  Indirectly  to  boycotting  may  be 
found  In  four  states — Arkansas,  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina  and  Tennessee.  Delaware,  Idaho,  Louisiana, 
New  Jersey  and  West  Virginia  have  statutes  forbidding 
the  interference  with  or  the  Intimidation  of  certain 
classes  of  workmen.  Acts  in  Delaware  and  New  Jer- 
sey relate  to  railroad  employees;  In  Idaho  and  West 
Virginia,  to  miners,  and  In  Louisiana  to  seamen.  It 
is,  however,  doubtful  whether  labor  disputes  were  con- 
templated In  the  Idaho  act.  New  Jersey  also  has  a 
general  statute  of  doubtful  appHcatlon  to  any  forms  of 
boycotts.  In  addition  to  other  laws,  Kentucky  pro- 
hibits particularly  interference  with  the  transportation 
workers;  Maine,  with  the  employees  of  the  public  util- 
ity corporations,  such  as  the  gas  and  railroad  compa- 
nies, and  Washington,  with  coal  miners. 

Until  November,  191 1,  no  laws  on  the  subject  had 
been  passed  by  the  legislatures  of  Arizona,  Montana, 
Nebraska,  New  Mexico,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia 
and  Wyoming.  The  Pennsylvania  act  legalizing 
strikes,  however,  specifically  provided  that  the  prose- 


BOYCOTT  LAWS  AND  DECISIONS     177 

cutlon  of  those   interfering  with   a   workman  in  his 
employment  should  not  be  prevented  thereby. 

Primary  Boycotts  and  the  Courts 

Having  observed  the  condemnatory  character  of  the 
federal  and  state  statutes,  let  us  consider  the  manner 
in  which  these  statutes,  as  well  as  the  slowly  evolving 
system  of  common  law,  have  been  applied  by  the  courts 
to  the  use  of  this  labor  weapon. 

The  primary  boycott,  that  is  the  agreement  of  one 
or  more  to  refrain  from  dealing  with  another  without 
inducing  third  parties  to  stop  their  patronage,  has 
generally  received  the  sanction  of  the  courts.  Mr. 
Lindley  D.  Clark,  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor,  thus 
concludes : 

''The  mere  withholding  of  patronage  or  refusal  to 
trade  is  not  unlawful,  and  the  announcement  or  pub- 
lication of  such  a  purpose  is  within  the  rights  of  the 
persons  agreeing  together  even  though  it  results  in  the 
injury  of  the  person  against  whom  the  acts  are  di- 
rected." 1 

Mr.  Clark  cites  numerous  instances  in  support  of  his 
contention. 

As  far  back  as  1842,  this  right  was  upheld  by  a 
Massachusetts'  Court.^  In  1870,  in  another  oft  quoted 
Massachusetts'  case,  it  was  held  that  it  was  "no  crime 
for  any  number  of  persons,  without  any  unlawful  object 
in  view,  to  associate  themselves  together,  and  agree 
that  they  will  not  work  for  or  deal  with  certain  men 
or  classes  of  men."  ^ 

Judges  Scott  and  Farmer,  in  an  Illinois  case,  take  a 
similar  position : 

^  Clark,  Law  of  the  Employment  of  Labor,  pp.  286,  287. 

2  Commonwealth  v.  Hunt,  Mass.,  1842. 

'  Carew  v.  Rutherford,  Mass.,  1870,  106  Mass.,  i,  14. 


178  BOYCOTTS 

"The  law  Is  that  an  individual  may  refrain  from 
trading  or  dealing  with  any  particular  person,  and  that 
two  or  more  individuals  may  agree  among  themselves 
that  they  will  not  trade  or  deal  with  a  certain  person 
and  may  give  notice  to  others  that  they  have  made  such 
an  agreement/'  ^ 

Judge  Gould  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  District 
of  Columbia,  a  federal  court,  in  the  famous  Buck's 
Stove  and  Range  case,  also  admitted  the  boycott's 
legality.    He  declared  that 

"Plaintiffs  or  defendants  have  a  right,  either  indi- 
vidually or  collectively,  to  sell  their  labor  to  whom 
they  please,  on  such  terms  as  they  please,  and  to  de- 
cline to  buy  plaintiff's  stoves;  they  have  also  a  right 
to  decline  to  traffic  with  dealers  who  handle  plaintiff's 
stoves."^ 

A  Minnesota  Court  decides  in  the  same  tenor: 

"It  is  perfectly  lawful  for  any  man,  unless  under 
contract  obligations,  or  unless  his  employment  charges 
him  with  some  public  duty,  to  refuse  to  work  for  or 
deal  with  any  man  or  class  of  men  as  he  sees  fit.  .  .  . 
What  one  man  may  lawfully  do  singly,  two  or  more 
may  agree  to  do  jointly."^ 

Further  cases  in  Indiana,*  Massachusetts,^  New  Jer- 
sey,^ New  York,*^  Oregon,^  Pennsylvania,^  Rhode 
Island,^^  and  other  states  may  be  cited  to  the  same 

'  Hey  V.  Wilson  (111.,  1908),  83  N.  E.  928,  931.  See  also  Ulery  v. 
Chicago  Stock  Exchange   (111.,  1894). 

2  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co.  v.  A.  F.  of  L.,  35  Wash.  Law  Rep.  797. 

'Bohn.v.  Hollis,  Minn.,  1893,  55  N.  W.  1119,  1121. 

*  Karges  Furniture  Co.  v.  Amalgamated  W.  L.  U.,  Ind.,  1905, 
Jackson  v.  Stanfield,  1895. 

^Bowen  v.  Matheson,  Mass.,  1867. 

6  Barr  v.  Essex,  N.  J.,  1894. 

7  Nat.  Prot.  Ass'n.  v.  Cummings,  N.  Y.,   1902. 

8  Longshore  Printing  Co.  v.  Howell,  Ore.,   1894. 
»  Cote  V.  Murphy,  Pa.,  1894. 

10  Macauley  v.  Tierney,  R.  I.,  1895. 


BOYCOTT  LAWS  AND  DECISIONS     179 

effect.  Chief  Justice  Shepard  and  Justice  Van  Orsdel 
of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  District  of  Columbia,  have 
taken  the  same  stand  in  the  Buck's  Stove  case,  the  lat- 
ter even  declaring  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  secondary 
boycott  is  legal. 

We  see,  therefore,  that  the  negative  and  primary 
boycotts  are  generally  considered  legal.  In  the  major- 
ity of  states,  laws  have  been  passed  which,  directly  or 
indirectly,  prohibit  the  employment  of  the  secondary 
or  compound  boycott.  In  the  federal  government,  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Law  and  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust 
Law  are  the  chief  statutes  thus  far  applied  to  the  sup- 
pression of  this  form  of  labor  activity. 

Let  us  next  consider  the  attitude  of  the  common 
law  toward  the  use  of  the  boycott. 


CHAPTER    XII 

JUDICIAL  REASONS   FOR  ILLEGALITY  OF   BOYCOTTS 

While  the  primary  boycott  has  secur^  the  sanction 
of  most  courts,  secondary  and  compound  boycotts  have 
been  vigorously  condemned  by  the  majority.  The  legal 
reasoning  is  often  not  well  defined,  and,  in  many  in- 
stances, is  obscured  by  legal  verbiage  which,  to  the 
layman,  often  seems  unnecessary  and  confusing. 

Generally  boycotting  has  been  considered  an  out- 
lawed weapon  on  the  ground  that  it  constitutes  a  com- 
mon law  conspiracy.  A  conspiracy  has  been  defined 
as  a  combination  of  two  or  more  organized  to  accom- 
plish an  illegal  end,  or  a  legal  end  by  illegal  means. 

Some  courts  have  decided  that  the  boycott  is  repre- 
hensible because  the  end  aimed  at  is  an  illegal  one; 
others,  because  the  means  employed  are  illegal.  The 
former  position  has  generally  been  taken  toward  the 
secondary  boycott;  the  latter,  toward  the  compound 
boycott.  The  judges  holding  that  the  object  of  the 
boycott  is  illegal,  declare  that  it  proposes  to  do  one  of 
the  following  things,  each  of  which  is  illegal : 

To  injure  another  in  his  trade,  business  or  prop- 
erty. 

To  restrain  or  block  the  avenues  of  trade  or  com- 
merce. 

To  induce  another  to  break  his  contract. 

Others  admit  that  the  ultimate  object  of  the  boycott, 
that  of  improving  the  condition  of  labor,  might  be  a 
legal  one,  but  declare  that  its  immediate  object  is  that 

1 80 


ILLEGALITY  OF  BOYCOTTS  i8i 

of  injury,  and  that  the  law  can  take  cognizance  only 
of  this  immediate  object.  Still  other  judges  in  this 
group  pronounce  the  boycott  illegal,  not  merely  on  the 
ground  of  injury,  but  because  such  injury  is  accompa- 
nied by  malice  or  is  without  justifiable  cause. 

The  second  general  class  of  judges  emphasizes  the 
illegal  means  employed — threats,  coercion,  intimida- 
tion, violence,  extortion,  misrepresentation — and  pro- 
claims the  boycott's  illegality  because  of  the  employ- 
ment of  one  or  more  of  these  means.  The  question  of 
whether  a  suppression  of  boycotts  interferes  with  free- 
dom of  speech  and  of  the  press  has  brought  forward 
special  arguments.  Let  us  analyze  more  closely  the 
reasoning  of  the  court. 

The  Law  of  Combination 

Ignoring  the  charge  that  boycotting  constitutes  a 
nuisance,  we  will  find  that  the  early  courts  were  prone 
to  argue  that  all  combinations  formed  to  injure  the 
business  or  property  of  another,  to  obstruct  or  inter- 
fere with  another  in  the  conduct  of  his  lawful  trade 
or  employment,  to  induce  another  to  break  his  con- 
tracts, or  to  block  the  avenues  of  trade  and  commerce, 
had  an  unlawful  end  in  view,  and  should,  therefore, 
be  condemned  as  conspiracies.  The  judges  admitted 
that  each  man  individually  had  a  right  to  refuse  to  deal 
with  another,  but  contended  that  an  agreement  with 
others  so  to  refuse  introduced  an  illegal  element.  In 
justifying  this  contention  they  argued  that  a  combina-^ 
tion  of  two  or  more  greatly  increased  the  power  for 
evil  and  often  rendered  the  members  of  the  combina- 
tion subject  to  the  arbitrary  and  malicious  action  of  the 
majority  thereof.  Judge  Harlan  thus  states  the  dis- 
tinction : 

"It  is  one  thing  for  a  single  individual  or  for  several 
individuals,  each  acting  on  his  own  responsibility  and 


1 82  BOYCOTTS 

not  in  cooperation  with  others,  to  form  the  purpose 
of  Inflicting  actual  injury  upon  the  property  or  rights 
of  others.  It  is  quite  a  different  thing  In  the  eye  of  the 
law  for  many  persons  to  combine  or  conspire  together 
with  the  intent  not  simply  of  asserting  their  rights  or 
of  accomplishing  lav/ful  ends  by  peaceable  methods, 
but  of  employing  their  united  energies  to  Injure  others 
or  the  public.  An  Intent  on  the  part  of  a  single  person 
to  Injure  the  rights  of  others  or  of  the  public  Is  not 
in  itself  a  wrong  of  which  the  law  will  take  cognizance 
unless  some  Injurious  act  be  done  in  execution  of  the 
lawful  Intent.  But  a  combination  of  two  or  more  per- 
sons with  such  intent,  and  under  circumstances  that 
give  them,  when  so  combined,  a  power  to  do  an  injury 
they  would  not  possess  as  individuals  acting  singly 
has  always  been  recognized  as  in  itself  wrongful  and 
illegal."! 

Ex-President  Taft,  then  Judge  Taft,  argued  in  a 
like  vein ; 

**A  combination  may  make  oppressive  or  dangerous 
that  which.  If  proceeding  from  a  single  person,  would 
be  otherwise,  and  the  very  fact  of  the  combination 
may  show  that  the  object  is  simply  to  do  harm,  and 
not  to  exercise  one's  own  justifiable  rights."^ 

Judge  Carpenter,  the  first  judge  of  a  court  of  last 
resort  declaring  a  boycott  In  America  illegal,  contended 
that  separately  men  were  powerless,  but  combined, 
formidable. 

The  supposed  surrender  of  the  discretion  of  each 
individual  to  the  direction  of  the  combination  is  thought 
by  VIce-Chancellor  Green  to  be  the  chief  evil  of  com- 
bination.    He  declared: 

**The  whole  strength  of  which  (the  combination) 
lies  in  the  fact  that  each  individual  has  surrendered 

1  Arthur  v.  Oakes,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  of  Ap.,  1894,  63  Fed.  310,  321, 
322.     Italics  are  the  author's. 

2  Moores  v.  Bricklayers,  Ohio,  1890.    Italics  are  the  author's. 


ILLEGALITY  OF  BOYCOTTS  183 

his  own  discretion  and  will  to  the  direction  of  the 
accredited  representatives  of  all  the  organizations.  He 
no  longer  uses  his  own  judgment,  but  by  entering  the 
combination  agrees  to  be  bound  by  its  decree.  A  mem- 
ber asserts  his  independence  of  judgment  and  action 
at  risk  of  all  association  with  fellow  members.  They 
will  not  eat,  drink,  live  or  work  in  his  company. 
Branded  by  the  peculiarly  offensive  epithets  adopted, 
he  must  exist  ostracised,  socially  and  industrially,  so 
far  as  his  former  associations  are  concerned."^ 

Malicious  and  arbitrary  actions  are  more  likely  to  be 
found  in  combinations,  contends  Judge  Robb  in  the 
Buck's  stove  case : 

"The  loss  of  trade  of  a  single  individual  ordinarily 
affects  a  given  dealer  very  little.  Being  discriminating, 
the  purchasing  public,  if  left  free  to  exercise  its  own 
judgment,  will  not  act  arbitrarily  or  maliciously,  but 
will  be  controlled  by  natural  considerations.  But  a 
powerful  combination  to  boycott  immediately  deflects 
the  natural  course  of  trade,  and  ruin  follows  in  its 
wake  because  of  the  unlawful  design  of  the  conspira- 
tors to  coerce  or  destroy  the  object  of  their  displeas- 
ure. In  other  words,  it  is  the  conspiracy,  and  not  the 
natural  causes,  which  is  responsible  for  the  result. 
From  time  immemorial  the  law  has  frowned  upon  com- 
binations formed  for  the  purpose  of  doing  harm."^ 

"A  grain  of  gunpowder  is  harmless,"  observed  Lord 
Brampton,  in  Quinn  v.  Leathem  (1901),  an  EngUsh 
case,  "but  a  pound  may  be  highly  destructive." 

In  attempting  in  a  somewhat  scientific  manner  to  de- 
scribe the  difference  between  the  acts  of  the  combination 
and  of  the  individual,  Mr.  Justice  Gibson,  nearly  a 
century  ago,  said: 

"There  is  between  the  different  parts  of  the  body 
politic  reciprocity  of  action  on  each  other,  which,  hke 
the  action  of  antagonistic  muscles  in  the  natural  body, 

'Barr  v.   Essex,  Conn.,  1894,  30  Atl  881,  889. 
*A.  F.  of  L.  V.  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co.,  Ct.  of  Ap.,  D.  of  C, 
1909,  33  App.  Cases,  D.  of  C.  83,  107. 


1 84  BOYCOTTS 

not  only  prescribes  to  each  other  its  appropriate  state 
and  condition,  but  regulates  the  motion  of  the  whole. 
The  efforts  of  an  individual  to  disturb  this  equilibrium 
can  never  be  perceptible,  nor  carry  the  operation  of 
his  interest  on  that  or  any  other  individual,  beyond 
the  limits  of  fair  competition.  But  the  increase  of 
power  of  combination  means,  being  in  geometrical  pro- 
portion to  the  numbers  concerned,  an  association  may 
be  able  to  give  an  impulse  not  only  oppressive  to  indi- 
viduals but  mischievous  to  the  public  at  large;  and  it 
is  the  employment  of  an  instrument  so  powerful  and 
dangerous  that  gives  criminality  to  an  act  which  would 
be  perfectly  innocent,  at  least,  in  a  legal  view,  when 
done  by  an  individual."^ 

The  Boycott  and  Illegal  Ends 

Injury  to  the  property  or  business  of  another,  inter- 
ference with  the  lawful  conduct  of  business  and  the 
free  employment  of  one's  capital  and  labor  power,  and 
undue  restraint  of  trade  are  among  the  so-called  il- 
legal ends  of  a  combination  which  have  warranted  the 
condemning  of  boycotts.  These  ends  are  condemned 
by  some  judges  only  when  malice  or  coercive  measures 
accompany  them. 

"If  it  (the  boycott)  means,  as  some  high  in  the  con- 
fidence of  the  trade  unions  assert,  absolute  ruin  to  the 
business  of  the  person  boycotted  unless  he  yields," 
states  Judge  Carpenter  in  the  first  of  the  boycott  cases, 
"then  it  is  criminal."^ 

"All  the  authorities  hold  that  a  combination  to  in- 
jure or  destroy  the  trade  or  business  of  another  by 
threatening  to  produce  injury  to  the  trade,  business  or 
occupation  of  those  who  have  business  relations  with 
him  is  an  unlawful  conspiracy,"  is  the  principle  laid 
down  in  a  recent  Missouri  case.^ 

1  Commonwealth  v.  Carlisle,  Pa.,  1821. 

2  State  V.  Glidden,  Conn.,  1887,  8  Atl.  890,  897. 

sLohse  Patent  Door  Co.  v.  Fuella,  Mo.,  1909,  114  S.  W.  997,  1003. 


ILLEGALITY  OF  BOYCOTTS  185 

Whether  or  not  the  business  or  the  good  will  of  one 
can  reasonably  be  called  a  property  right,  and  conse- 
quently whether  the  concerted  agreement  to  discon- 
tinue such  business  relations  and  to  induce  others  so 
to  do  may  be  considered  an  injury  to  such  right,  has 
been  the  bone  of  contention  in  a  number  of  cases. 
Judge  Wright  in  the  Buck's  Stove  case  contends  that  it 
is  such  a  right.^ 

"A  business,  be  it  mercantile,  manufacturing  or 
other,  which  has,  for  a  long  time,  been  successfully 
operated  and  developed,  possesses  a  greater  value  than 
a  like  business  newly  launched,  although  the  latter  be 
exactly  equivalent  in  respect  to  stock,  equipment,  money 
and  all  other  physical  possessions;  the  basis  of  the  ex- 
cess in  value  of  the  one  over  the  other  is  termed  the 
*good  will';  it  is  the  advantage  which  exists  in  estab- 
lished trade  relations  with  not  only  habitual  customers, 
but  with  the  trading  public  generally;  the  advantage  of 
an  established  public  repute  for  punctuality  in  dealing, 
or  superior  excellence  in  goods  or  product;  finally,  in 
last  analysis,  a  good  will,  when  it  exists,  is  one's  return 
for  the  expenditure  of  time,  money,  energy  and  effort 
in  development;  it  is  a  thing  of  value  in  the  sense  that 
it  is  a  subject  of  bargain  and  sale;  oftentimes  of  a 
value  that  exceeds  that  of  all  physical  assets  taken  to- 
gether; in  that  it  may  possess  exchange  value,  it  may 
be  'property' ;  when  it  does  possess  'exchange'  value, 
property  it  is;  and  the  combination  for  the  purpose  of 
destroying  it  is  for  an  'unlawful  act',  whether  you  call 
the  combination  a  'labor  union'  or  a  'trust.'  " 

Judge  Gould  also  took  this  position  and  cited  numer- 
ous cases  to  prove  "that  business  is  property  within  the 
meaning  of  the  law."^ 

'  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co.  v.  A.  F.  of  L.,  Sup.  Ct.,  D.  of  C, 
1908. 
'Ibid.,  1907,  70  Al.  L.  J.  8.  10,  II. 


1 86  BOYCOTTS 

The  law  also  condemns,  as  illegal  objects,  the  inter- 
ference with  and  restraining  of  trade  or  business  and 
of  the  power  to  dispose  of  one's  capital  and  labor 
power  as  one  wishes.  Many  judges  have  pronounced 
this  object  illegal  if  carried  out  by  individuals  as  well 
as  combinations.  In  some  courts  the  element  of  coer- 
cion, and,  in  others,  that  of  malice,  must  be  present  to 
render  the  acts  illegal. 

"No  person  or  combination  of  persons  can  legally, 
by  direct  or  indirect  means,  obstruct  or  interfere  with 
another  in  the  conduct  of  his  lawful  business,'^  declares 
an  Illinois  court.^ 

Judge  Robb  in  the  Buck's  Stove  case^  quotes  with 
approval  the  views  of  Chief  Justice  Fuller  regarding 
the  illegality  of  a  combination  in  restraint  of  trade. 

"The  combination  charged  falls  within  the  class  of 
restraints  of  trade  aimed  at,  compelling  third  parties 
and  strangers  involuntarily  not  to  engage  in  the  course 
of  trade  except  on  conditions  that  the  combination  im- 
poses; and  there  is  no  doubt  (to  quote  from  the  well- 
known  work  of  Chief  Justice  Earle  on  Trade  Unions) 
at  common  law  every  person  has  individually,  and  the 
public  has  collectively,  a  right  to  require  that  the  course 
of  trade  should  be  kept  free  from  unreasonable  ob- 
struction." 

The  right  to  employ  one's  talents  without  interfer- 
ence is  jeopardized  by  the  boycott,  according  to  some 
decisions.    Thus  a  Vermont  Court  argues: 

"The  principle  upon  which  the  cases,  English  and 
American,  proceed  is  that  every  man  has  the  right  to 
employ  his  talents,  industry  and  capital  as  he  pleases, 
free  from  dictation  of  others,  and  if  two  or  more  per- 

*  Purington  v.  Hinchliflf,  III,   1905.    Italics  are  the  author's. 
'A.  F.  of  L.  V.  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co.,  Ct.  of  Ap.,  D.  of  C 
1909. 


ILLEGALITY  OF  BOYCOTTS  187 

sons  combine  to  coerce  his  choice  in  this  behalf  it  is  a 
criminal  conspiracy."  ^ 

"Every  person,"  says  the  Michigan  Court  (Beck  v. 
Railway),  "has  a  right  under  the  law  as  between  him- 
self and  his  fellow  subjects  to  dispose  of  his  own  labor 
or  his  own  capital  according  to  his  own  will.  It  fol- 
lows that  every  other  person  is  subject  to  the  correla- 
tive duty  arising  therefrom,  and  prohibited  from  any 
obstruction  to  the  fullest  exercise  of  this  right  which 
can  be  made  compatible  with  the  exercise  of  similar 
rights  by  others." 

Of  the  same  tenor  are  the  decisions  of  the  courts  in 
Connecticut  (State  v.  GHdden),  IlHnois  (London  Guar- 
antee Co.  V.  Horn),  Indiana  (Jackson  v.  Stanfield), 
New  Jersey  (State  v.  Donaldson),  Maryland  (Lucke 
V.  Clothing  Cutters),  Massachusetts  (Carew  v.  Ruth- 
erford), and  others. 

Inasmuch  as  the  strike  had  been  declared  legal,  even 
though  it  resulted  in  injury  to  the  business  or  property 
of  another,  and  interfered  with  the  free  course  of 
commerce,  the  many  judges  soon  found  that  it  would  be 
necessary  to  modify  their  declarations  of  illegality  in 
respect  to  combinations  to  injure  the  property  of  an- 
other. They,  therefore,  sought  to  distinguish  between 
combinations  whose  immediate  purpose  was  to  injure 
the  business  of  another,  placing  boycotts  in  this  categ- 
ory, and  those  whose  immediate  object  was  that  of 
bettering  the  conditions  of  labor,  although  the  inci- 
dental result  of  the  latter  might  be  Injury.  Strikes  were 
placed  in  this  class.  Boycotts  and  other  combinations 
whose  immediate  intent  was  said  to  be  that  of  injury 
were  condemned  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  their  ultimate 
purpose  or  motive  was  to  benefit  labor,  while  strikes 
were  pronounced  legal. 

Judge  Gould  of  the  Supreme  Court,  District  of  Co- 

'  State  V.  Stewart,  Vt.,  1887,  9  Atl.  559,  568. 


i88  BOYCOTTS 

lumbia,  thus  refers  to  this  distinction  in  the  Buck's 
Stove  case  ( 1907)  : 

^'Defendants  claim  the  motive  of  wishing  to  benefit 
their  condition  affords  such  legal  justification;  but  this 
motive  is  too  remote  compared  with  their  immediate 
motive,  which  is  to  show  that  punishment  and  disaster 
necessarily  follow  a  defiance  of  their  claims.  As 
quoted  with  approval  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Penn- 
sylvania, in  Purvis  v.  Brotherhood:  'True,  the  de- 
fendants contend  and  testify  that  their  purpose  was  to 
benefit  their  own  members.  This,  doubtle^,  in  a  sense, 
is  true,  but  the  benefits  sought  were  the  remote  pur- 
pose, which  was  to  be  secured  through  the  more  imme- 
diate purpose  of  coercing  the  plaintiffs  into  complying 
with  their  demands,  or  otherwise  injuring  them  in  their 
business,  and  the  court  cannot,  in  this  proceeding,  look 
beyond  the  immediate  purpose  to  the  remote  results.' 
Such  is  the  doctrine  laid  down  in  Eddy  on  Combina- 
tions, and  quoted  with  approval  in  the  case  of  Erdman 
V.  Mitchell,  56  Atl.,  327,  as  follows:  'The  benefit  of 
the  members  of  the  combination  is  so  remote,  as  com- 
pared to  the  direct  and  immediate  injury  inflicted  upon 
the  non-union  workmen  (in  this  case  non-union  mill 
owners)  that  the  law  does  not  look  beyond  the  imme- 
diate loss  and  damage  to  the  innocent  parties  to  the 
remote  benefit  that  might  result  to  the  union. "^ 

An  Illinois  Court  follows  the  same  line  of  reason- 
ing: 

"The  law  allows  laborers  to  combine  for  the  pur- 
pose of  obtaining  lawful  benefits  to  themselves,  but  it 
gives  no  sanction  to  combinations  either  of  employers 
or  employed  which  have  for  their  immediate  purpose 
the  injury  of  another.'*  ^ 

The  same  argument  was  suggested  in  State  v.  Glid- 
den  and  in  numerous  other  cases.     In  making  this  dis- 

1  Buck's  Stove,  etc.,  v.  A.  F.  of  L.,  1907. 

^Barnes  v.  Typographical  Union,  111.,   1908,  83  N.  E.  940,  945. 


ILLEGALITY  OF  BOYCOTTS  189 

tinctlon  between  the  immediate  and  the  ultimate  ob- 
ject, some  have  named  the  immediate  object  the  "in- 
tent" and  the  remote,  the  "motive."  Mr.  Jeremiah 
Smith  thus  declares: 

"Intent  is  used  to  denote  the  immediate  object  aimed 
at  by  the  doer  of  the  act,  the  immediate  result  desired 
by  the  actor.  ^  Motive  is  used,  not  to  signify  the  object 
or  the  result  immediately  aimed  at,  but  the  cause  for 
entertaining  that  desire,  the  feehng  that  makes  the 
actor  desire  to  attain  that  result.  .  .  .  The  defend- 
ant frequently  intends  immediate  harm  to  the  plaintiff, 
but  generally  as  a  means  of  attaining  the  end  of  bene- 
fiting himself.  In  99  labor  cases  out  of  100,  the  de- 
fendant's motive  (or,  in  other  words,  his  ultimate  in- 
tent) is  to  promote  his  own  advantage.  A  man  may 
kill  a  king  in  order  to  benefit  people.  The  intention  is 
to  kill  the  king,  the  motive,  to  benefit.  A  defendant 
denies  intent  to  harm  plaintiff  when  he  really  means 
only  to  deny  a  bad  motive  for  the  intent.  Defendant 
means  that  he  did  not  do  harm  as  an  end  in  itself,  but 
merely  as  a  means  to  some  further  end  legitimately 
desired."^ 

The  Boycott  and  the  Doctrine  of  Malice 

Later  many  of  the  courts  contended  that  no  combi- 
nation employing  lawful  means  could  be  considered  il- 
legal, unless  it  contained  the  element  of  malice,  or  un- 
less it  was  formed  without  justifiable  cause.  After  an 
examination  of  the  facts  of  the  case,  the  judges  gener- 
ally concluded  that  malice  could  be  found  in  connection 
with  the  use  of  the  boycott,  or  that  there  was  no  legal 
justification  for  its  employment. 

The  essential  elements  of  mahce  in  most  instances 
are  not  clearly  set  forth.  In  fact  the  judges  are  in 
hopeless  disagreement  as  to  what  constitutes  mahce. 
Some  argue  that  there  must  be  a  sole  intent  to  injure; 

^Harvard  Law  Review,   v.   20,   pp.   451,   453- 


I90  BOYCOTTS 

others,  that  there  viust  be  no  pecuniary  advantage  to 
the  hoy  cotters.  Some  are  of  the  opinion  that  malice 
is  shown  if  the  benefit  derived  is  at  the  expense  of  the 
boycotted,  while  intent  to  wrong  without  justifiable 
cause  is  the  essential  factor  with  others.  Still  another 
group  argue  that  no  legal  malice  is  possible  without  an 
unlawful  act.    Following  are  some  of  the  explanations : 

'Tf  the  persuasion  be  used  for  the  indirect  pur- 
pose of  injuring  the  plaintiff  or  of  benefiting  the  de- 
fendant at  the  expense  of  the  plaintiff,  it  is  a  malicious 
act."^  (Bowen  v.  Hall,  an  English  case),  quoted  with 
approval  by  Barnes  v.  Typog.  Union  (111.,  1908). 

"Practically  it  is  better  to  remember  the  old  defini- 
tion that  malice  in  its  legal  sense  means  an  unlawful 
act,  done  intentionally  without  just  cause  or  excuseJ^^ 

''When  we  speak  in  this  connection  of  an  act  done 
with  a  malicious  motive  it  does  not  necessarily  imply 
that  the  defendants  were  actuated  in  their  proceedings 
by  spite  or  malice  against  the  complainant,  Mr.  Barr, 
in  the  sense  that  their  motive  was  to  injure  him  per- 
sonally, but  that  they  desired  to  injure  him  in  his  busi- 
ness in  order  to  force  him  not  to  do  what  he  had  a 
perfect  right  to  doJ'^ 

"It  is  said  that  in  each  case  (where  malice  is  an  ele- 
ment) the  basis  of  the  action  is  the  doing  of  an  act 
which  the  law  already  regards  as  illegal,  but  that  the 
doer  of  the  act  is  protected  from  its  usual  consequence 
in  the  event  that  he  was  actuated  by  an  honest  desire 
to  perform  a  public  or  private  duty."  Allen  v.  Flood 
(Enghsh,  1898). 

Boycotts,  time  without  number,  have  been  con- 
demned on  the  ground  that  in  their  operation  that 
vague,  indefinable  something  known  as  malice  was  a 

^83  N.  E.  940,  944. 

2  Foster  v.  Retail  Clerks'  Association,  N.  Y.,  78  N.  Y.  Supp.  865, 
866,  1902,  and  Joyce  v.  Gt.  No.  R'way,  Minn.,  1907.  Italics  are  the 
author's. 

3  Barr  v.  Essex,  N.  J.,  1894,  30  Atl.  881,  887.  Italics  are  the 
author's. 


ILLEGALITY  OF  BOYCOTTS  191 

prominent  feature.    Definitions  that  really  define,  how- 
ever, are,  for  the  most  part,  absent. 

Most  recently,  judges  in  a  number  of  states,  con- 
cluding that  the  word  "malice"  introduced  too  uncer- 
tain a  factor  on  which  to  base  their  decision,  approved 
''justifiable  cause"  as  the  true  criterion.  What  con- 
stitutes justifiable  cause?  This  expression  is  used  by 
some  judges  as  indicative  of  the  lack  of  maliciousness. 
Others,  however,  take  a  broader  view.  Generally  it 
resolves  itself  into  the  question  as  to  whether  the  pos- 
sible gain  to  the  promoter  will  reasonably  compensate 
for  the  possible  injury  inflicted.. 

"In  many  cases,"  asserts  Judge  Hammond,  "the  law- 
fulness of  an  act  which  causes  damage  to  another  may 
depend  upon  whether  an  act  is  for  justifiable  cause; 
and  this  justification  may  be  found  sometimes  in  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  is  done,  irrespective  of 
the  motive,  sometimes  in  the  motive  alone,  and  some- 
times in  the  circumstances  and  motive  combined."^ 

Judge  Hammond  decided  in  this  case,  which  involved 
the  right  to  threaten  a  strike  should  certain  workers 
refuse  to  join  the  union,  that  justifiable  cause  did  not 
exist,  and  that  the  necessity  that  the  plaintiff  join  the 
union  was  not  so  great,  nor  was  "the  relation  to  the 
rights  of  the  defendants  as  compared  with  the  rights 
of  the  plaintiffs  to  be  free  from  molestation  such  as 
to  bring  the  acts  of  the  defendants  under  the  shelter 
of  the  principle  of  trade  competition."  Mr.  E.  W. 
Huffcut  clearly  explains  the  position  of  compensating 
advantage  held  by  some : 

"There  is  presumptively  a  privilege  to  employ  any 
lawful  means  in  social  or  industrial  relations  .  .  .  and 
the  general  and  common  privilege  to  employ  these  can 
be  overcome  only  by  showing  that  they  are  employed 
for  an  unjustifiable  end,  that  is,  an  end  which  inten- 

'  Plant  V.  Woods,  Mass.,  1900,  57  N.  E.  ion,  1014. 


192  BOYCOTTS 

tionally  inflicts  a  damage  upon  a  particular  individual 
without  a  corresponding  and  compensating  advantage 
to  the  one  who  inflicts  it,  or  to  those  whom  he  repre- 
sents. .  .  .  The  question  of  justification  resolves  it- 
self into  this — do  the  desire  and  expectancy  of  ac- 
complishing this  particular  end  warrant  the  interfer- 
ence with  the  contracts  or  business  of  one  who  stands 
in  the  way  of  the  accomplishment?  If  that  end  be 
only  the  gratification  of  feeling,  whether  of  ill  will  or 
good  will,  it  is  not  of  such  substantial  character  which 
justifies  inflicting  pecuniary  loss  upon  another.  To 
gratify  a  feeling  of  malice  toward  the*  plaintifif  will 
hardly  be  thought  a  justification  for  inducing  third 
parties  not  to  deal  with  him.  To  gratify  a  feeling  of 
sympathy  or  good  will  toward  X  will  hardly  justify 
inducing  third  persons  not  to  deal  with  the  plaintiff 
unless  there  be  some  special  relation  between  X  and 
the  defendant  which  warrants  the  defendant  in  acting 
for  X.  Even  the  remote  advantage  the  defendant 
might  derive  as  one  of  a  large  class,  from  the  success 
of  X  in  the  competitive  struggle  with  the  plaintiff, 
would  not  be  sufficient."^ 

The  elements  which  are  essential  to  justify  injury 
are  clearly  stated  by  Mr.  Jeremiah  Smith  i^ 

1.  There  must  be  a  conflict  of  interest  between  plain- 
tiff and  defendant  as  to  the  subject  matter  in  regard  to 
which  the  damage  is  done,  or  at  least  there  must  he  a 
legitimate  interest  of  defendant  to  be  directly  served 
as  to  that  subject  matter. 

2.  The  damaging  act  must  he  reasonably  calculated 
to  advance  substantially  the  interests  of  the  defend- 
ants. 

3.  The  damage  resulting  to  the  plaintiff  or  to  the 
general  public  (including  the  employer)  must  not  be 
excessive  in  proportion  to  the  benefit  to  the  defendant. 
In  other  words,  there  must  be  a  reasonable  proportion 

^Harvard  Law  Review,  v.  18,  p.  439. 
^Ibid.,  V.  20,  p.  361. 


ILLEGALITY  OF  BOYCOTTS  193 

between  the  benefit  to  the  defendant  and  the  damage 
to  the  plaintiff  or  to  the  public. 

4.  Even  where  the  propositions  one,  two  and  three 
are  made  out,  the  justification  must  be  confined  to 
those  cases  where  defendant  uses  only  his  own  conduct 
as  a  lever,  and  therewith  operates  directly  upon  the 
possible  employer  or  customer  of  the  plaintiff.  De- 
fendant can  never  justify  his  right  to  work  or  not  to 
work  (or  any  other  right)  as  a  temporal  inducement 
to  influence  an  outsider  or  fourth  person,  to  exert 
pressure  upon  the  possible  employer  or  customer  of  the 
plaintiff. 

A  number  of  the  decisions  In  the  Massachusetts 
cases  are  based  on  this  doctrine. 

"The  crucial  question  is  whether  there  is  justifiable 
cause  for  the  act,"  runs  the  decision  in  Martell  v. 
White  (Massachusetts,  1904).  "If  the  injury  be  in- 
flicted without  justifiable  cause  or  excuse,  then  it  is 
actionable." 

Justice  Holmes  contended  In  Vegelahn  v.  Guntner 
(Mass.,  1896)  that,  "unless  defendant  prove  some 
ground  of  excuse  or  justification,"  a  combination  to 
injure  the  business  of  another  would  be  illegal.  That 
such  justification  is  a  suflicient  legal  excuse  is  the  be- 
lief expressed  in  the  Parkinson  case  (California, 
1908). 

While  the  consideration  of  justifiable  cause  Is  a 
great  advance  over  the  early  reasonings  in  boycott 
cases,  some  jurists  have  advanced  still  further,  and 
have  expressly  based  their  decisions  on  what  they  con- 
sider to  be  the  social  advantage.  Justice  Holmes,  for 
instance,  contends  that  "the  true  grounds  of  decisions 
are  considerations  of  policy  and  of  social  advantage, 
and  it  is  vain  to  suppose  that  solutions  can  be  at- 
tained merely  by  logic  and  the  general  propositions  of 
law  which  nobody  disputes."     The  part  which  public 


194  BOYCOTTS 

policy  should  play  in  the  determination  of  legal  ques- 
tions is  stated  by  Judge  Andrews : 

*'It  is  a  truism  that  there  are  many  acts  directly 
injuring  the  property  of  another,  yet  which  do  not 
give  rise  to  a  cause  of  action.  The  phrase,  damnum 
absque  injuria,  was  invented  to  meet  such  cases.  A 
may  make  such  erections  upon  his  land  as  he  chooses, 
notwithstanding  the  consequent  injury  to  his  neigh- 
,  bor.  B  may  by  fierce  and  continuous  competition  ruin 
I  a  business  rival.  C  may  advise  his  friend  to  patron- 
ize one  physician  rather  than  another.  'Of  course  all 
these  matters  have  their  limits.  If  A  goes  too  far  he 
may  create  a  nuisance.  If  B*s  competition  is  too 
strenuous,  he  may  be  guilty  of  fraud.  If  C  says  too 
much,  he  may  become  liable  for  slander.  In  the  last 
analysis  this  freedom  to  commit  injury  and  the  bounds 
imposed  upon  it  are  regulated  by  what  has  been 
thought  to  be  public  policy.  The  injury  itself  is  never 
good,  but  to  suffer  it  may  entail  less  injury  than  to  at- 
tempt to  check  it  by  legal  means. "^ 

Boycotts  and  Illegal  Means 

Still  other  courts  prefer  to  look  for  the  element 
of  illegality  in  the  means  employed  by  the  boycotters. 
If,  to  effect  their  purpose  of  injuring  others,  the  com- 
bination used  coercion,  intimidation,  force,  violence, 
misrepresentation  or  fraud,  or  induced  others  to  break 
their  contracts,  it  is  looked  upon  as  illegal.  Many 
a  judicial  controversy  has  been  fought  over  the  ques- 
tion as  to  what  really  constitutes  coercive  measures, 
threats,  and  other  illegal  means.  Some  judges  have 
contended  that  any  threat,  direct  or  indirect,  of  loss 
of  business,  made  against  a  third  party,  in  order  to 
induce  such  party  to  cease  business  relations  with  an- 
other, is  coercive  and  intimidating  in  its  nature  and 

'  Foster  v.  Retail  Qerks'  etc.,  N.  Y.,  1902,  78  N.  Y.  Supp.  860,  864. 
Italics  are  the  author's. 


ILLEGALITY  OF  BOYCOTTS  195 

therefore  illegal,  if  it  forces  a  man  against  his  will  to 
grant  the  conditions  demanded.  Others  have  averred 
that  the  same  reasoning  which  is  applied  to  ordinary 
business  dealings  should  also  obtain  in  the  discussion  of 
labor  combinations ;  and  that,  in  the  competitive  strug- 
gle of  the  business  world,  parties  are  daily  compelled 
to  grant  financial  concessions  through  threats  of  which 
it  is  impossible  for  the  law  to  take  cognizance. 

To  declare  a  boycott  illegal  because  a  threat  is  made 
to  boycott  another  if  he  continues  to  trade  with  the 
boycotted  firm  is,  furthermore,  vicious  reasoning  in 
a  circle.  Some  judges,  therefore,  argue  that  unless  the 
means  used  are  such  as  will  be  considered  illegal  if 
used  by  one  individual,  such  as  the  application  of 
physical  violence,  the  use  of  fraud,  the  inducing  of 
another  to  break  his  contract,  the  combination  should 
be  permitted. 

If  we  analyze  the  attitude  of  the  judges  as  to  what 
constitutes  coercive  measures,  we  will  find  that,  gener- 
ally speaking,  proof  of  physical  violence  is  not  neces- 
sary. 

"The  clear  weight  of  authority  undoubtedly  is  that 
a  man  may  be  intimidated  into  doing  or  refraining 
from  doing,  by  fear  of  loss  of  business,  property  or 
reputation,  as  well  as  by  dread  of  loss  of  life,  or 
injury  to  health  or  limb,  and  that  the  extent  of  this 
fear  need  not  he  abject,  hut  only  such  as  to  overcome 
his  judgment,  or  induce  him  to  do  or  not  to  do  that 
which  otherwise  he  would  have  done  or  left  undone,'* 
declared  Vice  Chancellor  Green. ^ 

The  Massachusetts,^  Pennsylvania,  and  other  courts 
take  a  similar  view.  Actual  threats  are  not  necessary,' 
in  the  view  of  some.  Judge  Andrews  declares  on  this 
point: 

1  Barr  v.  Essex,  N.  J.,  1891,  30  Atl.  881,  889. 

2  Plant  V.  Woods,  Mass.,  1900. 

3  Purvis  V.  United  Brotherhood,  Pa.,  1906. 


196  BOYCOTTS 

*Tt  should  be  remembered  .  .  .  that  to  constitute 
Intimidation  It  is  not  necessary  that  there  should  be  any 
direct  threat,  still  less  any  actual  act  of  violence.  It  is 
enough  that  the  mere  attitude  assumed  by  the  defend- 
ants is  intimidating.  And  this  may  be  shown  by  all  the 
circumstances  in  the  case,  by  the  methods  of  the  de- 
fendants, their  circulars,  their  numbers,  their  devices."^ 

That  the  Imposition  of  fines  on  members  of  the  labor 
organizations  who  refuse  to  boycott  third  parties  con- 
stitutes coercion  is  held  by  some  of  the»  courts  in  Ver- 
mont,^ Indiana,^  and  elsewhere. 

Not  only  the  actual  coercive  or  Intimidating  meas- 
ures, but  threats  to  adopt  such  measures,  are  considered 
as  Illegal  means  by  the  majority  of  the  judges,  and 
"threats"  also  cover  a  multitude  of  deeds.  The  Cyclo- 
paedia of  Law  and  Procedure  concludes,  citing  Bout- 
well  case : 

"It  Is  clear  that  every  one  has  a  right  to  withdraw 
patronage  when  he  pleases,  but  equally  clear  that  he 
has  no  right  to  employ  threats  or  intimidation  to  divert 
the  patronage  of  another."* 

A  Michigan  Court  thus  summarizes: 

"The  boycott  condemned  by  law  is  not  alone  that 
pccompanled  by  violence  and  threats  of  violence,  but 
that  where  the  means  used  are  threatening  in  their 
nature,  and  intended  and  naturally  tend  to  overcome 
by  fear  of  loss  of  property  the  will  of  others,  and  com- 
pel them  to  do  things  they  would  not  otherwise  do."^ 

The  word  "to  boycott"  Itself  is  a  threat,  according 
to  some. 

*  Foster  v.  Retail  Clerks',  etc.,  N.  Y.,   1902,  78  N.  Y.  Supp.  860, 
863.     Italics  are  the  author's. 

^Boutwell  V.  Marr,  Vt.,  1899. 
^Jackson  v.  Stanfield,  Ind.,  1893. 

*  Italics  are  the  author's. 

''  Beck  V.  Teamsters'  Union,  Mich.,  1898,  yy  N.  W.  13,  24.    Italics 
are  the  author's. 


ILLEGALITY  OF  BOYCOTTS  197 

''The  use  of  the  word  'boycott'  is  in  itself  a  threat/^ 
wrote  the  judge  in  an  early  Pennsylvania  case  (Brace 
V.  Evans,  Pa.,  1888).  "In  popular  acceptation  it  is 
an  organized  effort  to  exclude  a  person  from  business 
relations  with  others  by  persuasion,  intimidation  and 
other  acts  which  tend  to  violence,  and  thereby  coerce 
him,  through  fear  of  resulting  injury,  to  submit  to  dic- 
tation in  the  management  of  his  affairs."^ 

Threats  will  often  be  read  into  language  which  in 
form  is  mere  persuasion.  The  kind  of  threat  it  is  neces- 
sary to  make  in  order  to  render  the  act  illegal  is  not 
stated  in  many  of  the  decisions.  Some  contend  that 
the  threat  must  be  to  do  an  unlawful  act.  A  Tennessee 
Court  concludes : 

"In  law  a  threat  is  a  declaration  of  an  intention  or 
determination  to  injure  another  by  the  commission  of 
some  unlawful  act.  ...  If  the  act  intended  to  be 
done  is  not  unlawful,  then  the  declaration  is  not  a 
threat  in  law,  and  the  effect  thereof  is  not  intimidation 
in  a  legal  sense. "^ 

Many  of  the  courts,  indeed,  have  shown  great  skill 
in  reading  into  mere  requests  this  illegal  deed  of  threat- 
ening. In  Plant  V.  Woods,  for  instance  (Mass.,  1900), 
the  workers  on  a  strike  visited  the  employers  of  other 
union  men  to  inquire  whether  the  former  would  use 
their  good  services  in  having  the  men  reinstated.  Dur- 
ing the  conversation,  the  workers  were  asked  whether 
it  would  mean  trouble,  if  the  request  was  not  granted, 
and  the  men  replied  that  it  might.  This  was  a  threat, 
in  the  eyes  of  the  court. 

Violence,  of  course,  is  considered  an  illegal  means. 

"The  labor  and  skill  of  the  workmen;  the  equipment 
of  the  farmer;  the  investment  of  commerce  are  all,  in 
equal  sense,  commerce.  If  mea,  by  overt  acts  of  vio- 
lence, destroy  either,  they  are  guilty  of  crime."^ 

^  5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  163,  171.  Italics  are  the  author's. 
'  Payne  v.  R.  R.,  Tenn.,  1884,  49  Am.  Rep.  666,  674. 
^  State  V.   Stewart,  Vt.,  1887. 


198  BOYCOTTS 

Freedom  of  Speech  and  Press 

Boycotters  have  often  contended  that  to  prevent 
them  from  publishing  notices  of  the  boycotts,  and 
otherwise  announcing  them  in  print,  is  an  infringement 
of  the  freedom  of  the  press,  granted  by  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  courts,  however,  have  for  the  most  part  held 
that  when  such  publication  Is  one  of  the  means  em- 
ployed in  carrying  out  an  illegal  purpose — that  of  boy- 
cotting— the  free-speech  argument  is  without  merit. 
It  Is  also  contended  that  no  right  Is  absdlute,  and  that, 
when  its  unbridled  exercise  Infringes  on  the  equal  rights 
of  others,  and  deprives  them  of  such  rights  as  that 
of  acquiring,  possessing  and  protecting  property,  the 
law  can  and  should  interfere. 

In  granting  the  injunction  against  Mr.  Gompers, 
Judge  Gould  examined  the  contention  of  the  defend- 
ants that,  if  plaintiff  had  any  redress  for  such  publica- 
tion, it  was  for  action  for  the  libel,  and  that  equity  will 
not  enjoin  a  libel.    He  added: 

"All  this  would  have  merit  If  the  act  of  the  defend- 
ants in  making  such  publication  stood  alone,  uncon- 
nected with  other  conduct  both  preceding  and  follow- 
ing it.  But  It  is  not  an  isolated  fact;  according  to  the 
allegations  of  the  bill  and  the  supporting  affidavits,  it  is 
an  act  in  a  conspiracy  to  destroy  plaintiffs  business,  an 
act  which  has  a  definite  meaning  and  instruction  to 
those  associated  with  defendants  and  an  act  which  Is 
the  basis  of  conduct  on  the  part  of  defendant's  asso- 
ciates which  unlawfully  Interferes  with  plaintiff's  right 
of  freedom  to  trade  with  those  whom  he  pleases.  The 
argument  of  counsel  Is  fully  answered  by  the  language 
of  Mr.  Justice  Holmes  in  the  case  of  Aikens  v.  Wis- 
consin, 195  U.  S.  194:  'No  conduct  has  such  an  abso- 
lute privilege  as  to  justify  all  possible  schemes  of 
which  it  may  be  a  part.  The  most  Innocent  and  con- 
stitutionally protected  of  acts  or  omissions  may  be 
made  a  step  in  a  criminal  plot,  and,  if  it  Is  a  step  In  a 


ILLEGALITY  OF  BOYCOTTS  199 

plot,  neither  its  innocence  nor  the  Constitution  is  suffi- 
cient to  prevent  the  punishment  of  the  plot  by  law.'  "^ 

The  same  general  principle,  though  not  so  stringent 
an  application  thereof,  was  held  by  Judge  Robb  of  the 
Court  of  Appeals,  in  affirming  a  portion  of  the  injunc- 
tion.^ 

''While  the  right  of  free  speech  is  guaranteed  to  all 
citizens  by  the  Constitution,"  holds  a  California  judge 
(Jordahl  v.  Hayda,  Cal.,  1905),  "there  is  also  guar- 
anteed to  them  by  the  same  Constitution  the  right  'of 
acquiring,  possessing  and  protecting  property  and  ob- 
taining safety  and  happiness'  (see  Art.  i,  Sec.  i);  .  .  . 
and  it  is  a  maxim  of  jurisprudence  prescribed  by  the 
statute  law  of  this  State  that  one  must  use  his  rights 
so  as  not  to  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  another  (Civil 
Code,  Sec.  3514)." 

"It  would  be  strange  indeed,"  wrote  Judge  Taft, 
"if  that  right  (to  assemble  and  free  speech)  could  be 
used  to  sustain  the  carrying  out  of  such  an  unlawful 
and  criminal  conspiracy  as  we  have  seen  this  to 
be.  .  .  .  If  the  obstruction  to  the  operation  of  the 
road  by  the  receiver  was  unlawful  and  malicious,  it  is 
not  less  contemptible  because  the  instrument  which  he 
used  to  effect  it  was  his  tongue  rather  than  his  hand."^ 

1  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co.  v.  A.  F.  of  L.,  Sup.  Ct.,  D.  of  C,  1907, 
70  Al.  L.  J.  8,  10.     Italics  are  the  author's. 

2  A.  F.  of  L.  V.  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co.,  Ct.  of  Ap.,  D.  of  C, 
1909.     Italics  are  the  author's. 

3  Thomas  v.  Cinn.,  N.  O.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co.,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct,  Ohio, 
1894,  62  Fed.  803,  822. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

JUDICIAL  ARGUMENT  FOR  LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT 

That  the  judicial  reasoning  just  described,  whereby 
secondary  boycotts  and  at  least  a  portion  of  the  so- 
called  compound  boycotts  have  been  pronounced  illegal, 
is  based  upon  an  antiquated  doctrine  of  conspiracy 
which  even  the  English  courts,  its  originators,  have 
long  since  abandoned,  and  that  it  is  poor  law  and  worse 
logic  is  the  claim  of  the  insurgent  wearers  of  the  er- 
mine, of  students  of  law  and  of  social  science,  who 
have  voiced  their  protest  against  the  outlawing  of 
this  weapon.  These  critics  contend  that  the  right  of 
one  person  to  deal  or  not  to  deal  with  another  is  in- 
controvertible, and  that  the  same  should  be  true  of  a 
combination.  They  claim  that  the  best  legal  and 
economic  reasoning  dictates  that  the  same  doctrine 
should  be  applied  to  a  labor  combination  as  to  an  in- 
dividual, and  that  the  danger  of  such  combination  is 
not  necessarily  greater  than  the  action  of  a  single  indi- 
vidual. 

They  assert  that  the  ends  proclaimed  to  be  illegal, 
those  of  injury  of  business,  etc.,  are  for  the  most  part 
employed  without  interference  by  very  large  numbers 
of  combinations  in  the  business  world;  that  the  dis- 
tinction sometimes  made  between  combinations  whose 
immediate  results  and  those  whose  ultimate  results 
are  beneficial  cannot  be  applied  in  this  case  with  any 
show  of  logic;  that  the  doctrine  of  malice  should  be 
eliminated  as  meaningless,  confusing,  unreasonable; 
that  a  biased  use  is  here  made  of  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 

200 


LEGALITY    OF    THE    BOYCOTT      201 

able  cause;  and  finally  that  the  introduction  of  the  ele- 
ments of  threat,  coercion  and  intimidation  presents,  in 
very  many  instances,  a  splendid  example  of  "reasoning 
in  a  circle,"  and  unjustly  discriminates  against  the 
worker  in  his  struggles.  The  logic  by  which  the  use  of 
the  injunction  against  free  speech  and  press  is  justified 
is  also  declared  dangerous  from  a  broader  social  stand- 
point. 

Law  of  Combination 

Many  contending  for  the  legality  of  boycotts  argue 
that  one  individual  has  the  right  to  refuse  to  have  deal- 
ings with  another,  for  any  reason  or  for  no  reason,  and 
that  that  which  it  is  legal  for  one  individual  to  do  it 
is  also  legal  for  two  or  more  individuals  to  combine 
to  do.  Judge  Holloway,  in  the  well-known  decision  of 
Lindsay  and  Co.  v.  The  Montana  Federation  of  Labor 
(1908),  thus  declares: 

"There  can  be  found  running  through  our  legal  liter- 
ature many  remarkable  statements  that  an  act  per- 
fectly lawful  when  done  by  one  person  becomes,  by 
some  sort  of  legerdemain,  criminal  when  done  by  two 
or  more  persons  acting  in  concert,  and  this  upon  the 
theory  that  the  concerted  action  amounts  to  a  con- 
spiracy. But  with  this  doctrine  we  do  not  agree.  //  an 
individual  is  clothed  with  a  right  when  acting  alone,  he 
does  not  lose  such  right  merely  by  acting  with  others, 
each  of  whom  is  clothed  with  the  same  right.  If  the 
act  done  is  lawful,  the  combination  of  several  persons 
to  commit  it  does  not  render  it  unlawful.  In  other 
words,  the  mere  combination  of  action  is  not  an  ele- 
ment which  gives  character  to  the  act.  It  is  the  illegal- 
ity of  the  purpose  to  be  accomplished,  or  the  legal 
means  used  in  furtherance  of  the  purpose,  which  makes 
the  act  illegal.  (18  Ency.  Law  (2d  Ed.),  82;  Bohn 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  HoUis).  'A  conspiracy  is  a  combination 
of  two  or  more  persons  by  some  concerted  action  to 


202  BOYCOTTS 

accomplish  a  purpose  not  In  Itself  criminal  or  unlawful, 
by  criminal  or  unlawful  means'  (Anderson's  Law  Dic- 
tionary, 234) .  .  .  .  Chief  Justice  Parker,  In  speaking 
for  the  Court  of  Appeals  In  National  Protective  Asso- 
ciation V.  Cumming,  said :  'Whatever  one  man  may  do 
alone  he  may  do  In  combination  with  others,  provided 
they  have  no  unlawful  object  in  view.  Mere  numbers 
do  not  ordinarily  affect  the  quality  of  the  act.'  "^ 

A  Texas  decision  (Delz  v.  Winfree,  1891)  is  of 
similar  import:  ^ 

"An  act  which  if  done  by  one  alone  constitutes  no 
ground  of  action  cannot  be  made  the  ground  of  such 
action  by  alleging  it  to  have  been  done  by  and  through 
a  conspiracy  of  several.  The  true  test  as  to  whether 
such  action  will  lie  is  whether  or  not  the  act  accom- 
plished after  the  conspiracy  has  been  formed  Is  itself 
actionable."  ^ 

"Whatever  one  man  may  do,"  an  Indiana  decision 
reads,  "all  men  may  do,  and  what  all  may  do  singly 
they  may  do  in  concert  if  the  sole  purpose  of  the  com- 
bination Is  to  advance  the  proper  interests  of  the  mem- 
bers, and  it  is  conducted  In  a  lawful  manner."^ 

The  decision  of  Macauley  v.  Tierney  (Rhode 
Island,  1895)  is  of  the  same  tenor.  The  opposite 
view,  many  jurists  argue,  is  illogical. 

It  Is  stated  that  a  combination  Is  more  dangerous 
than  is  a  unit,  and  therefore  should  be  regarded  dif- 
ferently by  the  law  under  modern  economic  conditions. 
A  single  individual,  however,  may  well  be  more  power- 
ful than  any  combination.  Mr.  Robt.  L.  McWilllams 
thus  puts  it : 

"Some  other  courts  have  held  that  the  mere  act  of 
combining  constituted  'illegal  means,'  probably  on  the 

1  96  Pac.  127,  130.     Italics  are  the  author's. 

2  16  S.  W.   III. 

3  Karges  Furniture  Co.  v.  Amalgamated  W.  U.  L.,  Ind.,  1905,  75 
N,  E.  877,  880. 


LEGALITY    OF    THE    BOYCOTT      203 

grounds  stated  in  the  old  criminal  cases  that  the  com- 
bination was  the  *gist  of  the  conspiracy.'  It  is  cer- 
tainly true  that  the  commission  of  acts  by  a  combina- 
tion of  persons  may  change  their  character  to  the  ex- 
tent of  making,  them  more  offensive  and  harder  to 
resist.  But  it  is  also  true  that  under  modern  economic 
conditions  one  person  may,  because  of  his  situation,  be 
able  to  inflict  far  more  loss  on  his  competitors  or  on 
the  public  than  any  number  of  persons  combined  for 
that  purpose.  In  neither  case  the  legal  coercion  or 
intimidation  is  necessarily  present.  Hence  there  is  no 
justification  for  holding  that  the  presence  of  combina- 
tion, ipso  facto,  changes  the  character  of  what  would 
without  the  existence  of  the  combination  be  unques- 
tionably lawful  acts,  and  makes  them  unlawful."^ 

Even  though  the  acts  are  more  effective  when  done 
in  combination.  Justice  Jenks  of  the  New  York  Appel- 
late Division  sees  no  reason  for  their  changed  char- 
acter.   He  declares : 

"Mere  numbers  do  not  ordinarily  affect  the  quality 
of  the  act.  .  .  .  A's  attitude  may  be  trivial  as  to  B, 
when  that  of  a  combination  might  enforce  B's  conces- 
sions, but  this  affords  no  legal  reason  against  such  a 
combination.  It  is  not  in  the  breast  of  the  court  to 
stamp  as  illegal  a  combination  for  the  betterment  of 
the  interest  of  the  members  thereof  or  of  some  of 
them,  and  which,  without  incidental  violation  or  intimi- 
dation, severs  all  business  dealings  with  an  outsider 
until  it  may  secure  It.  If  this  be  Illegal,  where  can 
we  draw  the  line  so  as  to  countenance  associations  to 
secure  united  and  therefore  effective  action  to  right 
what  seems  wrong,  or  to  correct  what  seems  an  abuse, 
or  to  mark  disapproval  of  some  policy  in  everyday 
affairs  of  our  social  life?"^ 

^American  Lazv  Review,  v.  41,  p.  337-  Italics  are  the  author's. 
Chief  Justice  Shepard,  of  Ct.  of  Appeals,  D.  of  C,  in  Buck's  Stove 
Case,  takes  a  similar  position. 

2  Mills  V.  U.  S.  Printing  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1904,  99  App.  Div.  606,  610. 


204  BOYCOTTS 

In  fact  the  necessity  of  such  combinations  is  admitted 
by  enlightened  judges.  Justice  Holmes,  now  of  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court,  succinctly  argued: 

"It  is  plain  .  .  .  that  free  competition  means  com- 
bination and  that  the  organization  of  the  world  now 
going  on  so  fast  means  an  ever-increasing  might  and 
scope  of  combination.  .  .  .  One  of  the  eternal  con- 
flicts out  of  which  life  is  made  up  is  that  between  the 
effort  of  every  man  to  get  the  most  he  can  for  his 
services,  and  that  of  society,  disguised  unc^er  the  name 
of  capital,  to  get  his  services  for  the  least  possible  re- 
turn. Combination  upon  the  one  hand  is  potent  and 
powerful.  Combination  on  the  other  is  the  necessary 
and  desirable  counterpart  If  the  battle  is  to  be  carried 
on  in  a  fair  and  equal  manner."^ 

Many  are  also  realizing  that  a  unit  of  capital  may 
be  far  more  powerful  than  a  unit  of  labor — a  million- 
dollar  corporation,  than  the  labor  power  of  one  man. 
When  a  law  places  different  rules  on  the  action  of  the 
individual  and  that  of  the  combination,  it  puts  labor  at 
a  great  disadvantage  in  its  battles  with  capital. 

To  the  suggestion  made  by  some  judges  that  combi- 
nation ought  to  be  regarded  in  a  different  light  from 
individual  endeavor,  because  it  leads  to  a  restriction  of 
individual  liberty,  it  may  be  said  that  the  laborer  can 
only  win  some  degree  of  independence  through  such 
combination,  and  that  his  dependence  on  others  is  far 
greater  when,  as  an  unorganized  worker,  he  tries  to 
obtain  better  conditions  than  when  he  strives  for  such 
conditions  with  a  strong  organization  to  support  his 
demands.  Furthermore,  such  a  ruling  interferes  with 
his  liberty  to  contract. 

*Tf  .  .  .  the  law  forbids  X,  Y  and  Z  to  combine 
for  a  purpose  which  they  each  might  lawfully  pursue  if 
acting  without  concert,  then  the  contracting  power  of 

^Vegelahn  v.  Guntner,  Mass.,  1896,  44  N,  E.  1077,  1081. 


LEGALITY    OF    THE    BOYCOTT      205 

X,  Y  and  Z,  or,  in  other  words,  their  liberty  of  action, 
suffers  a  serious  curtailment,"  observes  Professor  A.  V. 
Dlcey.^ 

Mr.  Jeremiah  Smith  is  of  a  like  opinion. 

**It  is  answered  'any  one  may  exercise  choice  as 
to  whom  he  may  sell  his  goods,  but  he  cannot  enter 
into  a  contract  whereby  he  binds  himself  not  to  sell, 
for  in  such  an  instance  he  barters  away  his  right  of 
choice,  and  destroys  the  very  right  he  claims  the  privi- 
lege of  exercising.  After  entering  upon  such  an  agree- 
ment he  is  no  longer  a  free  agent.'   .  .  . 

"  'It  is  an  argument  that  would  be  pertinent  against 
the  organization  of  society  into  government.  .  .  .  The 
will  of  the  individual  must  consent  to  yield  to  the  will 
of  the  majority,  or  no  organization,  either  of  society 
into  government,  capital  into  combination,  or  labor 
into  coalition,  can  ever  be  effected.  The  individual 
must  yield  in  order  that  he  may  receive  the  greater 
benefit.'  "^ 

To  condemn  boycotts  on  the  ground  that  they  are 
conspiracies  is  furthermore  to  take  as  a  fundamental 
element  that  which  is  merely  incidental.  The  boycott 
is  not  necessarily  the  result  of  a  combination,  and  when 
initiated  by  a  combination  it  is  carried  on  by  individ- 
uals.    Mr.  E.  P.  Cheyney  thus  argues : 

"The  propriety  should  be  called  into  question  of 
choosing  the  comparatively  unessential  element  of  the 
boycott,  the  combination  which  initiates  it,  as  the  es- 
pecially criminal  element.  Combination  Initiates  the 
coercion,  but  cannot  consummate  it.  It  is  therefore  a 
matter  of  fair  question  whether  the  boycott  has  been 
properly  treated  as  a  conspiracy,  and  this  irrespective 
of  the  question  of  its  criminality."* 

*  Dicey,  Law  and  P.  O.,  p.  I55-  .       ,   _„.        .     -r.     . 

^Harvard  Law  Review,  v.  20,  p.  347,  quoting  J.  Ellison  in  l^ord 
Heim  Brewing  Co.  v.  Belinder,  Q7  Mo.  App.  64,  69. 
'  E.  P.  Cheyney,  Pol  Sc.  Qtrly.,  v.  4,  P-  276. 


2o6  BOYCOTTS 

Finally,  it  is  contended  that  those  who  declare  that 
combination  brings  into  play  an  illegal  element  not 
found  in  individual  action  are  superimposing  on  our 
present  economic  structure  the  old  doctrine  of  con- 
spiracy which  has  done  yeoman  service  in  suppressing 
all  combinations  of  labor;  that  England,  from  which 
the  common  law  doctrine  of  conspiracy  was  taken  bod- 
ily, has  long  since  thrown  this  doctrine  onto  the  scrap 
heap,  as  unsuited  to  the  present  day,  and  that  this  coun- 
try should  follow  in  its  wake,  if  it  is  to  ke^p  abreast  of 
the  times. 

"This  proposition,  that  it  is  unlawful  for  men  to  do 
collectively  what  they  may  do,  without  wrong,  indi- 
vidually, was  enunciated  more  than  a  century  and  a 
half  ago,  when  all  manner  of  association  and  coopera- 
tion among  men  offensive  to  the  king  or  not  in  the  in- 
terest of  despotic  power  or  of  the  ruling  classes  or  not 
approved  by  the  judges  were  declared  by  the  courts 
to  be  criminal  conspiracy,"  affirmed  Judge  Caldwell.^ 

The  origin  of  this  doctrine  and  the  caution  with 
which  it  should  be  used  are  described  by  counsel  in  an 
early  Connecticut  case : 

"No  branch  of  the  law  has  gone  through  so  many 
transformations  as  that  relating  to  conspiracy.  In  its 
present  form  it  had  its  origin  and  the  impulse  to  its 
growth  in  the  Star  Chamber  (see  Poulterer's  Case, 
J  Co.  Rep.  SS) — ^  court  which  legislated  as  well  as 
judged,  and  which,  as  Lord  Clarendon  says  in  his  his- 
tory of  the  Great  Rebellion,  'held  for  honorable  that 
which  pleased,  and  for  just  that  which  profited.'  He 
adds  that  the  foundations  of  right  were  never  more 
in  danger  of  being  destroyed.  At  first  used  to  bring 
popular  leaders  to  the  block,  the  law  of  conspiracy 
has  in  later  times  been  invoked  to  suppress  combina- 
tions among  workmen  to  better  their  condition.  Many 
of  the  most  eminent  judges  in  the  country  have  looked 
*  Oxley  Stave  Co,  v.  Hopkins,  1897,  83  Fed.  912,  930. 


LEGALITY    OF    THE    BOYCOTT      207 

upon  it  with  disapproval,  and  expressed  determination 
to  restrict  rather  than  extend  it."^ 

Mr.  Allen  P.  Hallett  indicates  the  manner  in  which 
this  doctrine  was  used  in  the  past  to  pronounce  illegal 
almost  every  form  of  labor  activity  i^ 

"It  was  upon  this  general  ground  (that  of  illegal 
conspiracy)  that  labor  combinations  were  once  ad- 
judged to  be  criminal.  It  was  held  that  the  liberty  of 
a  man's  mind  and  will  to  say  how  he  should  employ 
his  time,  his  talents  and  industry,  for  whom  he  should 
work,  or  whom  he  should  employ,  was  as  much  the 
subject  of  the  law's  protection  as  that  of  his  body,  and 
that  any  combination  formed  for  the  purpose  of  coerc- 
ing this  liberty  of  mind  and  freedom  was  criminal,  be- 
cause formed  for  the  accomplishment  of  an  unlawful 
purpose." 

Thus  in  England,  in  numerous  decisions,  combina- 
tions to  raise  wages  were  pronounced  illegal  on  the 
ground  of  conspiracy.  Said  Judge  Grose  in  Rex  v. 
Mawley  (6  T.  R.  636)  : 

''In  many  cases  an  agreement  to  do  a  certain  thing 
has  been  considered  as  a  subject  of  an  indictment  for 
a  conspiracy,  though  the  same  act,  if  done  separately 
by  each  individual  without  any  agreement  among  them- 
selves, would  not  have  been  illegal.  As  the  case  of 
journeymen  conspiring  to  raise  their  wages:  each  may 
insist  on  raising  his  wages  if  he  can,  but  if  several  meet 
for  the  same  purpose  it  is  illegal,  and  the  parties  may 
be  indicted  for  conspiracy." 

Oftentimes  the  same  arguments  of  the  coercive  ef- 
fect of  a  combination,  both  upon  the  outsider  and  the 
members,  were  employed  in  the  past  in  declaring  strikes 
and  other  combinations  illegal. 

*  Quoted  in  State  v.   Glidden,  Conn.,    1887,  55  Conn.,  46,  60. 
"Hallett,  American  Encyclopedia,  v.  18,  p.  82. 


2o8  BOYCOTTS 

"What  is  the  case  now  before  us?"  asks  Recorder 
Levy  in  the  Philadelphia  Cordwainer's  Case  of 
1806.  .  .  .  "A  combination  of  workmen  to  raise 
their  wages  may  be  considered  in  a  twofold  point  of 
view;  one  is  to  benefit  themselves  .  .  .  the  other  is 
to  injure  those  who  do  not  join  their  society.  The  rule 
of  law  condemns  both.  If  the  rule  be  clear,  we  are 
bound  to  conform  to  it,  even  though  we  do  not  com- 
prehend the  principle  upon  which  it  is  founded 

Hawkins,  the  greatest  authority  on  the  criminal  law, 
has  laid  it  down  that  a  combination  to  maintain  one 
another,  carrying  a  particular  object,  whether  true  or 
false,  is  criminal.  .  .  .  One  man  determines  not  to 
work  under  a  certain  price,  and  it  may  be  individually 
the  opinion  of  all.  In  such  a  case  it  would  be  lawful 
in  each  to  refuse  to  do  so,  for,  if  each  stands  alone, 
either  may  retract  from  his  determination  when  he 
pleases.  In  the  turnout  of  last  fall  if  each  man  of 
the  body  had  stood  alone,  fettered  by  no  promise  to 
the  rest,  many  of  them  might  have  changed  their  opin- 
ion as  to  the  price  of  wages  and  gone  to  work;  but  it 
has  been  given  to  you  in  evidence  that  they  were  bound 
down  by  their  agreement,  and  pledged  by  mutual  en- 
gagements to  persist  in  it,  however  contrary  to  their 
own  judgment.  The  continuance  of  improper  conduct 
may  ...  be  attributed  to  the  combination."  The 
jury,  after  hearing  the  charge,  brought  in  the  verdict: 
"We  find  defendants  guilty  of  a  combination  to  raise 
their  wages."  Defendants  were  fined  eight  dollars 
with  costs.^ 

Such  combinations  to  raise  wages  were  also  declared 
illegal  on  the  ground  that  they  would  produce  baneful 
results,  that  they  interfered  with  the  freedom  of  con- 
tract of  employers  and  were  against  public  policy. 
Said  Recorder  Levy  again: 

"Is  there  any  man  who  can  calculate  (if  this  is 
tolerated)  at  what  price  he  may  safely  contract  to  de- 

^Doc.  Hist.  Am.  Indus.  Soc,  v.  3,  pp.  233,  234. 


LEGALITY    OF   THE    BOYCOTT      209 

liver  articles  for  which  he  may  receive  orders,  If  he  is 
to  be  regulated  by  the  journeymen  in  an  arbitrary 
jump  from  one  price  to  another?  It  renders  it  Im- 
possible for  a  man  making  a  contract  for  a  large  quan- 
tity of  such  goods  to  know  whether  he  shall  lose  or 
gain  by  it.  If  he  makes  a  large  contract  for  goods 
to-day,  for  delivery  at  3,  6  or  9  months  hence,  can  he 
calculate  what  the  prices  will  be  then  if  the  journey- 
men in  the  intermediate  time  are  permitted  to  meet  and 
raise  their  prices,  according  to  their  caprice  or  pleas- 
ure? Can  he  fix  the  price  of  his  commodity  for  a 
future  day?  It  Is  Impossible  that  any  man  can  carry  on 
commerce  In  this  way.  .  .  .  What,  then,  is  the  opera- 
tion of  this  kind  of  conduct  upon  the  commerce  of  the 
city?  It  exposes  it  to  Inconvenience,  If  not  to  ruin, 
therefore  it  is  against  public  welfare."^ 

In  view  of  the  origin  and  history  of  the  law  of  con- 
spiracy, and  the  many  combinations,  formerly  con- 
demned, now  found  to  be  for  the  general  welfare,  one 
is  loath  to  accept  this  law  as  an  Infallible  guide  in  de- 
termining the  legality  or  Illegality  of  organized  effort. 

Injury  of  Business 

The  boycott  has  been  condemned  on  the  ground  that 
It  Is  a  combination  to  Injure  the  business  or  property 
of  another.  Many  deny,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the 
mere  concerted  refusal  to  have  business  dealings  with 
another  violates  a  property  right  or  Injures  another  In 
his  property.  In  the  legal  acceptance  of  the  term.  Thus 
Judge  Holloway,  in  the  case  of  Lindsay  and  Co.,  again 
says: 

''Certainly  it  cannot  he  said  that  Lindsay  &  Co.  had 
a  property  right  in  the  trade  of  any  particular  person. 
In  this  country  patronage  depends  upon  good  will, 
and  we  do  not  think  that  it  will  be  contended  by  any 

"■  Ihid.,   p.   229. 


2IO  BOYCOTTS 

one  that  It  was  wrongful  or  unlawful,  or  violated  any 
rights  of  the  plaintiff  company,  for  any  particular  in- 
dividual in  Billings  to  withdraw  his  patronage  from 
Lindsay  &  Co.  or  from  any  other  concern  that  might 
be  doing  business  with  that  company,  and  that,  too, 
without  regard  to  his  reason  for  doing  so."  ^ 

After  stating  that  the  same  rule,  in  his  opinion, 
should  hold  true  of  combinations.  Judge  Holloway 
continues : 

"It  may  be  true  that,  generally  speaking,  no  one  has 
the  right  intentionally  to  do  an  act  for  the  purpose  of 
injuring  another's  business;  but  injury,  however,  in  its 
legal  significance,  means  damage  resulting  from  the 
violation  of  a  legal  right,  and  it  is  a  violation  of  a 
legal  right  which  renders  an  act  wrongful  in  the  eye  of 
the  law,  and  makes  it  actionable.  If,  then,  these  de- 
fendants and  their  associates  did  not  violate  any  legal 
right  of  the  plaintiff  in  withdrawing  their  patronage 
from  the  company,  or  In  agreeing  to  withdraw  their 
patronage  from  any  one  who  might  patronize  Lindsay 
&  Co.,  they  cannot  be  enjoined  from  continuing  the 
boycott  In  force,  so  long  as  the  means  employed  to 
make  the  boycott  effective  are  not  Illegal." 

Professor  George  Gorham  Groat  ^  Is  emphatic  in 
his  belief  that  no  business  or  property  right  is  Inter- 
fered with,  nor  Is  any  loss  occasioned  for  which  the 
one  refusing  the  relation  can  be  held  responsible,  when 
one  or  more  abstains  from  buying  from  or  selling  to 
another. 

"That  they  refrain  from  the  relation  cannot  be  Inter- 
preted as  a  loss  to  the  other  party  to  the  relation.  It 
is  true  that  such  relations  are  entered  into  for  mutual 
gain.  If  one  desires  the  relation  for  his  gain  and  the 
other  refrains  because  he  does  not  see  it  to  his  Interest 
to  assume  the  relation.  It  does  not  mean  that  there  is  a 

1  Italics  are  the  author's. 

2  Groat's  Attitude  of  American  Courts  in  Labor  Disputes,  p.  113. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT        211 

loss.  It  IS  true  that  an  opportunity  for  gain  cannot  be 
taken  advantage  of,  but  that  is  not  a  loss.  One  can- 
not be  said  to  have  suffered  a  loss  of  a  thousand  dollars 
because  he  has  never  found  a  thousand  dollars. 

"But  further,  so  long  as  buying  and  selling  are  two 
views  of  the  same  act,  an  act  of  voluntary  business 
relation,  and  so  long  as  the  relation  must  be  one  of 
mutual  agreement,  it  is  difficult  to  see  where  the  prop- 
erty right  enters  in.  One's  business  is  of  course  his 
property.  So  in  a  sense  may  one's  labor  be  called  his 
property.  When  one  offers  for  sale,  and  another  re- 
fuses to  buy,  there  is  simply  a  refusal  to  exchange 
property  for  property.  When  one  points  out  to  an- 
other, or  to  many  others,  that  it  is  to  his  interest  not  to 
buy,  there  is  again  simply  the  refusal  to  exchange. 
When  many  meet  and  decide  together  or  agree  not  to 
buy,  there  is  a  concerted  refusal  to  exchange.  To  in- 
terpret this  as  a  malicious  destruction  of  one's  business, 
which  is  property,  and  even  to  interpret  it  as  an  in- 
fringement of  a  property  right,  is  a  manifestation  for 
solicitude  for  one  form  of  property  (a  business)  at  the 
expense  of  another  form  (labor)  that  is  not  easy  to 
justify.  A  man  who  goes  into  business  assumes  the 
risk  of  failure  together  with  the  chances  of  success. 
If  failure  comes,  it  is  his  risk,  so  long  as  it  comes  from 
the  refusal  of  others  to  buy,  and  is  his  loss,  but  it  is 
not  a  loss  for  which  those  who  refuse  to  be  purchasers 
can  be  held  responsible." 

Professor  Groat  believes  that  the  doctrine  of  com- 
bination and  motive  should  not  make  any  difference  in 
the  conclusion  reached.  Nor,  it  is  averred,  should  the 
boycott  be  counted  among  the  illegal  acts  only  because 
it  results  in  restraint  of  trade,  or  interferes  with  the 
freedom  of  others  to  conduct  their  business  or  employ 
their  talents  as  they  see  fit,  as  this  is  contrary  to  legal 
precedents. 

"No  case  can  be  found,"  writes  Judge  Mitchell,  "in 
which  it  was  ever  held  that  at  common  law  a  con- 


212  BOYCOTTS 

tract  or  agreement  in  general  restraint  of  trade  was 
actionable  at  the  instance  of  third  parties,  or  could 
constitute  the  foundation  for  such  an  action.  The 
courts  sometimes  call  such  contracts  'unlawful'  or  'ille- 
gal,' but  in  every  instance  it  will  be  found  that  these 
terms  were  used  in  the  sense  merely  of  Void'  or  unen- 
forceable as  between  the  parties;  the  law  considering 
the  disadvantage  so  imposed  upon  the  contract  as  a 
sufficient  protection  to  the  public."^ 


Doctrine  of  Immediate  and  Ultimate  Results 

The  theory  of  immediate  and  ultimate  results  has 
generally  been  used  by  judges  in  justifying  their  ap- 
proval of  strikes  while  at  the  same  time  condemning 
boycotts.  They  have  contended  that  the  immediate 
object  of  the  strike  is  to  better  the  conditions  of  labor; 
that  of  boycott  to  injure  the  business  of  another. 

If  we  face  the  facts  as  they  are,  say  the  advocates 
of  the  boycott,  we  will  fail  to  find  this  distinction. 
Both  strikes  and  boycotts  immediately  injure  the  busi- 
ness of  the  employer;  strikes,  by  depriving  the  em- 
ployer of  his  labor  force;  boycotts  by  depriving  him 
of  his  market.  The  ultimate  object  of  each  form  of 
activity  is  that  of  improving  the  lot  of  the  worker. 
It  is  doubtless  true  that  in  the  secondary  boycott  some- 
what more  indirect  methods  to  induce  others  to  aid  in 
limiting  the  employer's  market  are  employed  than 
are  found  in  some  strikes.  When  picketing  is  brought 
into  play,  however,  and  third  parties  are  induced  to 
abstain  from  offering  their  labor  power  to  the  em- 
ployer, the  methods  of  the  strike  and  the  boycott  show 
a  marked  similarity.  When  strikers  bring  to  their  aid 
the  sympathetic  strike,  all  distinctions  between  the 
boycott  and  strike  on  the  ground  of  immediate  and  ulti- 
mate effects  are  found  to  be  without  merit. 

*Bohn  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hollis,  Minn.,  1893,  55  N.  W.  11 19,  1121. 


LEGALITY  OF   THE  BOYCOTT        213 

Granting  that  this  distinction  really  existed  in  fact, 
many  judges  have  contended  that  the  law  should  not 
take  cognizance  of  the  difference,  and  that  unions 
should  be  able  to  use  in  their  preparations  the  same 
means  which  they  use  in  their  final  contests,  in  order 
to  perform  their  function  effectively.  Justice  Holmes 
thus  states : 

"The  immediate  object  and  motive  (in  this  case) 
was  to  strengthen  the  defendants'  society  as  a  prelimi- 
nary and  means  to  enable  it  to  make  a  better  fight 
on  questions  of  wages  or  other  matters  of  clashing 
interests.  I  differ  from  my  brethren,  in  thinking  that 
the  threats  were  as  lawful  for  this  preliminary  purpose 
as  for  the  final  one  to  which  strengthening  the  union 
was  a  means.  I  think  that  unity  of  organization  is 
necessary  to  make  the  contest  of  labor  effectual,  and 
that  societies  of  laborers  may  employ  in  their  prepara- 
tions the  means  which  they  might  use  in  the  final  con- 
test."i 


Doctrine  of  Malice 

Boycotts  are  often  condemned  in  law  on  the  ground 
of  their  alleged  malicious  character.  They  are  de- 
clared to  be  organized  attempts  to  injure  the  business 
of  another  maliciously.  Advocates  of  the  boycott,  on 
the  other  hand,  contend  that  the  causes  giving  rise  to 
boycotts  are  very  similar  to  those  of  strikes,  and  that 
no  more  actual  malice  is  shown  in  the  organization  of 
the  one  than  of  the  other.  The  truth  of  this  conten- 
tion is  conclusively  proved  in  the  reports  of  the  boy- 
cotts waged  in  New  York  State  during  the  eighties  and 
nineties.  Others  contend  that  if  the  doctrine  of  malice 
were  applied  to  the  competitive  struggle  on  the  busi- 
ness field  in  the  same  manner  as  it  has  been  applied 
to  boycotts  in  labor  disputes,  a  large  part  of  the  activity 
'Plant  V.  Woods,  Mass.,  1900,  57  N.  E.  ion,  1016. 


214  BOYCOTTS 

of  modern  business  would  be  considered  actionable.  If 
it  is  not  legally  malicious  and  therefore  actionable  for 
business  rivals  to  attempt  to  divert  trade  from  their 
competitors,  in  order  to  secure  larger  profits,  even 
though  their  efforts  cause  a  loss  to  others,  it  should  not 
be  actionable  for  trade  unionists  so  to  do,  in  order  to 
obtain  more  wholesome  working  conditions.  Nor 
should  the  fact  that  the  rivalry  is  between  two  classes 
in  society  deprive  the  actions  of  their  competitive  char- 
acter. The  injury  which  one  organization»on  the  busi- 
ness field  causes  to  another,  in  its  quest  for  a  larger 
market,  and  Its  non-actionable  character,  are  thus  cog- 
ently expressed  by  a  West  Virginia  judge : 

"In  these  days  of  sharp,  ruinous  competition  some 
punishment  Is  Inevitable.  The  dead  are  found  strewn 
all  along  the  highways  of  business  and  commerce.  Has 
It  not  always  been  so?  Will  it  always  be  so?  The 
evolution  of  the  future  must  answer.  What  its  evo- 
lution will  be  In  this  regard  we  do  not  yet  know,  but 
we  do  know  that  thus  far  the  law  of  the  survival  of  the 
fittest  has  been  Inexorable.  Human  intellect,  human 
laws,  cannot  prevent  these  disasters.  The  dead  and 
wounded  have  no  right  of  action  from  the  working  of 
this  imperious  law.  This  is  a  free  country.  Liberty 
must  exist.  It  Is  for  all.  This  Is  a  land  of  equality,  so 
far  as  the  law  goes,  though  some  men  do,  in  lust  of 
gain,  get  the  advantage.     Who  can  help  it?"^ 

Circuit  Judge  Caldwell  thus  vividly  contrasted  the 
legal  attitude  toward  business  and  that  toward  labor 
combinations : 

"Corporations  and  trusts  and  other  combinations  of 
Individuals  and  aggregations  of  capital  extend  them- 
selves right  and  left  through  the  entire  community, 
boycott  and  inflict  irreparable  damage  upon  and  crush 
out  all  small  dealers  and  producers,  stifling  compe- 
tition, establishing  monopoly,  reducing  the  wages  of 

*  West  Virginia  Transportation  Co.  v.  Standard  Oil,  W.  Va.,  1901. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT        215 

labor,  raising  the  price  of  food  on  every  man's  table, 
and  of  clothes  on  his  back  and  of  the  house  that  shel- 
ters him,  and  inflicting  on  the  wage  earners  the  pains 
and  penalties  of  the  lockout  and  the  blacklist  and  deny- 
ing to  them  the  right  of  association  and  combined 
action  by  refusing  employment  to  those  who  are  mem- 
bers of  labor  organizations,  and  all  these  things  are 
justifiable  as  a  legitimate  result  of  the  evolution  of 
industry  resulting  from  new  social  and  economic  con- 
ditions and  of  the  right  of  every  man  to  carry  on  his 
business  as  he  sees  fit,  and  of  lawful  competition."^ 

No  injury  to  business  of  another  Inflicted  by  lawful 
means  and  for  the  advantage  of  the  one  causing  the 
Injury  can,  according  to  Justice  Holmes,  be  considered 
malicious  or  actionable.     He  states: 

"The  policy  of  allowing  free  competition  justifies  the 
intentional  infliction  of  temporal  damages.  Including 
the  damage  of  interfering  with  a  man's  business  by 
some  means,  when  the  damage  is  done,  not  for  its  own 
sake,  but  as  an  instrument  In  reaching  the  end  of  vic- 
tory in  the  battle  of  trade.  The  only  debatable  ground 
is  the  nature  of  the  means  by  which  such  damage  may 
be  Inflicted.  It  may  be  done  by  the  refusal  or  with- 
drawal of  various  pecuniary  advantages,  which,  apart 
from  this  consequence,  are  within  the  defendant's  law- 
ful control.  It  may  be  done  by  the  withdrawal  or 
threat  to  withdraw  such  advantages  from  third  persons 
who  have  a  right  to  deal  or  not  to  deal  with  the  plain- 
tiff  as  a  means  of  inducing  them  not  to  deal  with  him 
either  as  customers  or  servants.  .  .  .  I  have  seen  the 
suggestion  made  that  the  conflict  between  employers 
and  employed  is  not  competition.  Certainly  the  policy 
is  not  limited  to  struggles  between  persons  of  the  same 
class  competing  for  the  same  end.  It  applies  to  all 
conflicts  of  temporal  interests.''^ 

'Gxley  Stave  Co.  v.   Hopkins,   1897,  83  Fed.  912,  932.     ^ 
'Vegelahn  v.  Guntner,  Mass.,  1890.    Italics  are  the  authors. 


2i6  BOYCOTTS 

Justice  Holmes*  contention  that  the  same  principle 
should  apply  in  the  competitive  struggle  between 
classes  as  in  that  between  business  rivals,  is  affirmed  by 
Mr.  Jeremiah  Smith.    He  declares: 

*Tn  a  controversy  between  employer  and  work- 
men in  respect  to  wages,  hours,  etc.,  both  parties  have 
the  rights  of  business  competitors  in  the  broad  sense. 
There  is  a  conflict  of  temporal  interests  between  buyers 
and  sellers  of  labor;  in  general,  'whatever  one  party 
gains,  the  other  loses.*  "^ 

The  similarity  of  the  two  forms  of  competition  is 
also  pointed  out  in  a  North  Carolina  case.^ 

''A  carpenter  or  joiner  has,  by  his  apprenticeship, 
study  and  experience,  acquired  skill  and  knowledge  in 
his  trade.  His  capital  consists  in  his  physical  strength 
and  his  intellect,  trained  and  directed  by  his  skill  and 
experience.  It  Is  the  use  of  this  which,  in  a  sense,  he 
offers  for  sale.  In  what  respect,  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  the  prices  for  his  labor  on  the  best  terms,  do 
his  rights  differ  from  the  man  who  has  cotton  for  sale, 
the  product  of  his  capital — land  and  labor — or  the  man 
who  has  money  to  invest  in  mercantile  or  manufactur- 
ing enterprise?  Each  of  them  enters  into  the  field  of 
competition.  Each  finds  that  organization  with  others 
engaged  in  the  same  field  of  labor  or  investment  will 
secure  better  results  and  fairer  treatment  from  those 
with  whom  he  deals.** 

Judge  Caldwell  in  the  Oxley  Stave  case  takes  a 
similar  position. 

Mr.  Jeremiah  Smith  insists  on  the  application  of  the 
same  principles  to  both  business  and  labor  struggles: 

*'If  the  issue  of  had  motive  can  he  thus  raised  in 
lahor  conflicts^  it  must  also  he  allowed  in  cases  of  or- 

^  Harvard  Law  Review,  v.  20,  pp.  357,  358.     Italics  are  the  au- 
thor's. 
'  State  V.  Van  Pelt,  No.  Car.,  1904,  49  S.  E.  177,  184. 


LEGALITY    OF   THE    BOYCOTT      217 

dinar y  trade  competition,  a  very  wide  field.  We  think 
that  the  rarely  occurring  punishment  of  a  personal 
enemy,  who  has  masked  his  hostility  under  the  guise  of 
competition,  would  not  offset  the  harm  caused  honest 
competitors  by  their  being  compelled  to  litigate  the 
question  of  the  fairness  of  their  motives  whenever  as- 
sailed by  a  disappointed  rival."^ 

In  the  waging  of  labor  disputes,  he  avers,  there  are 
so  many  mixed  motives  involved — the  motives  of  one 
boycotter  being  markedly  different  from  those  of  his 
fellow — that  it  is  exceedingly  dangerous  to  labor  to 
have  the  legality  of  their  actions  tested  on  the  ground 
of  maHcious  or  legitimate  motives.  Mr.  Darling 
writes : 

"Least  of  all  should  the  law,  in  cases  of  mixed  mo- 
tives, allow  an  issue  as  to  which  was  the  dominant  mo- 
tive. In  the  struggle  between  labor  and  capital,  each 
striving  for  the  advantage,  as  in  the  struggle  between 
capital  and  capital,  passions  are  engendered  that  doubt- 
less lead  contestants  at  times  to  think  more  of  injuring 
their  opponents  than  of  benefiting  themselves,  but  the 
legality  of  their  conduct  must  surely  be  tested  by  gen- 
eral considerations,  arising  from  the  relations  of  the 
parties,  and  like  matters,  and  not  by  the  quality  of  the 
motives  in  any  particular  instance.  In  a  contest  in- 
volving strikes  and  boycotts,  one  man,  who  is  of  lower 
instincts,  may  act  principally  from  motives  of  revenge; 
another,  who  is  high  minded,  from  a  desire  to  elevate 
himself  and  his  fellow  workmen."^ 

It  is  again  maintained  that  this  doctrine  leads  to 
speculations  by  juries  regarding  internal  standards  of 
conduct  which  end  in  great  injustice.  Lord  Mac- 
Naughten  thus  states,  in  Allen  v.  Flood: 

"Against  spite  and  malice  the  best  safeguards  are 
to  be  found  in  self  interest  and  public  opinion.     Much 

^Harvard  Law  Review,  v.  20,  p.  454.     Italics  are  the  author's. 
'Am.  Law  Reg.,  v.  43  N.  S.,  p.   116, 


2i8  BOYCOTTS 

more  harm  than  good  would  be  done  by  encouraging  or 
permitting  inquiries  into  motives,  when  the  immediate 
act  alleged  to  have  caused  the  loss  for  which  redress 
is  sought  is  in  itself  innocent  or  neutral  in  character, 
and  one  which  anybody  may  do  or  leave  undone  with- 
out fear  of  legal  consequences.  Such  an  inquisition 
would,  I  think,  be  intolerable,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
probability  of  injustice  being  done  by  juries  in  a  class 
of  cases  in  which  there  would  be  ample  room  for  specu- 
lation and  wide  scope  for  prejudice."^ 

• 

Mr.  Justice  Holmes  declares  It  "a  dangerous  prin- 
ciple to  leave  his  liability  to  be  determined  by  a  jury 
upon  the  question  of  his  malice  or  want  of  malice,  ex- 
cept In  those  cases  where  the  words  spoken  were 
false,"^  while  Mr.  Darling  Is  of  the  belief  that  the  con- 
sideration of  motives  leads  to  ''uncertainty  and  would 
make  the  same  act  under  the  same  circumstances  legal 
in  one  person  and  illegal  In  another."^ 

That  the  natural  consequence  of  the  consideration  of 
motive  is  a  discrimination  against  labor  unions,  be- 
cause of  the  failure  of  the  court  to  see  the  justification 
of  certain  forms  of  labor  union  activities,  is  the  belief 
of  Mr.  G.  R.  Askwith,  one  of  the  most  prominent  of 
the  English  attorneys.  Mr.  Askwith  stated  that  within 
his  memory  there  was  not  one  case  In  which,  upon  the 
grounds  of  advance  of  the  Interest  of  labor,  the  men 
had  won.^  Sidney  Webb  at  the  same  inquiry  main- 
tained that  the  judges  had  never  admitted,  as  far  as 
he  knew,  that  the  maintenance  of  a  standard  rate  of 
wages  was  a  valid  object  of  public  policy,  although  this 
had  long  since  been  admitted  by  the  world  of  political 
economy.     He  averred  that  the  judges  were  for  the 

*  AJlen  V.  Flood,  67  L.  J.  Q.  B.  1 19,  199. 
^Vegelahn  v.  Guntner,  Mass.,   1890. 
^American  Law  Register,  v.  43,  p.  115. 

*  Report  of  minutes  of  evidence  taken  before  Royal  Commission, 
p.  42. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT        219 

most  part  still  expounding  the  political  economy  of 
the  eighteenth  century. 

In  discussing  the  English  law  of  conspiracy  before 
1906,  under  which  boycotting  had  been  condemned  on 
account  of  the  presence  of  so-called  malicious  mo- 
tives, Sir  Godfrey  Lushington  of  the  Royal  Commis- 
sion vividly  portrayed  the  unfavorable  position  of  the 
worker.     He  declared: 

''That  hy  this  law  workmen  engaged  in  a  trade  dis- 
pute are  placed  at  a  special  disadvantage  cannot  be 
doubted.  It  is  only  necessary  to  realize  the  course  of 
an  action  of  conspiracy  to  injure  brought  against  work- 
men for  their  conduct  with  reference  to  a  strike.  .  .  . 
A  strike,  being  an  industrial  war,  there  are  present  of 
necessity  all  the  elements  of  conspiracy  to  injure,  viz. : 
harm,  intention  to  do  harm,  combination  to  do  harm. 
For  justification  the  defendants  have  nothing  to  offer 
but  the  plea  of  self  interest.  To  rebut  this  .  .  .  the 
plaintiff  alleges  bad  motive.  This,  too,  can  never  be 
wanting.  For  every  strike,  every  act  of  every  strike, 
is  necessarily  a  hostile  operation,  the  employees  have 
always  the  object  to  force  the  employer  to  change  his 
mode  of  business — just  as  the  employer's  object  is  to 
force  upon  the  workmen  terms  of  their  employment — 
and  this  is  regarded  by  the  law  as  an  evil  motive. 

"Then  the  question  is  put  to  the  jury :  'Did  the  defend- 
ants act  from  the  motive  to  do  harm  to  others  or  from 
the  motive  to  benefit  themselves  ?  Or  did  they  act  more 
from  the  one  motive  than  the  other?'  A  question  as 
difficult  to  answer  as  would  be  a  question  concerning  a 
soldier  who,  after  taking  aim,  fired  off  his  rifle  in  time 
of  battle,  whether  his  predominant  motive  was  to  help 
his  country  or  to  hurt  his  enemy.  But  the  jury  have  to 
answer  and  this  answer  can  hardly  fail  to  be  unfavor- 
able. Not  to  speak  of  their  probably  not  including  in 
their  number  any  workingman,  nor  to  impute  to  them 
the  common  bias  of  assuming  all  strikers  to  be  distur- 
bers of  industry  and  insurgents  against  lawful  authority, 
nor  to  suppose  that  in  matters  of  political  economy  they 


220  BOYCOTTS 

are  prejudiced  in  favor  of  the  theory  of  individualism 
and  opposed  to  that  of  collective  action,  the  jury  will 
have  presented  to  them  the  picture  of  strikers  angry 
and  excited,  and  of  the  loss  and  distress  which  are  the 
visible  and  immediate  consequences  of  a  strike  and 
have  been  intentionally  caused  by  the  strikers;  and 
when  the  question  is  thus  put  to  them  it  would  be 
strange  indeed  if  they  did  not  attribute  the  intentional 
acts  of  the  strikers  rather  to  a  desire  to  inflict  these 
evils  than  to  the  hope  of  advantages  to  be  obtained  if 
the  strike  is  successful — advantages  unseen,  remote, 
and  a  matter  of  indifference  to  the  jury.  The  truth, 
nevertheless,  trade  unionists  would  urge,  is  the  con- 
trary. 

'Tn  a  strike,  as  in  trade  competition,  there  may  be, 
in  most  cases  there  probably  is,  ill  feehng  on  both 
sides,  at  all  events  after  the  strike  has  gone  on  for 
some  time,  but  no  strike  was  ever  either  commenced  or 
maintained  out  of  spite  to  master  or  man,  any  more 
than  a  lockout  was  ever  declared  by  employers  to  spite 
the  employed.  .  .  .  Moreover,  in  every  organized 
trade  a  strike  is  simply  a  matter  of  policy  for  the  trade 
union."^ 

The  utter  lack  of  agreement  as  to  the  meaning  of 
malice,  and  the  confusion  to  which  the  use  of  such  a 
word  inevitably  leads,  are  put  forward  as  still  another 
reason  why  it  should  not  be  considered  in  deciding  on 
the  legality  or  illegality  of  boycotts.  The  many  mean- 
ings of  the  word  are  thus  instanced  by  Professor  J.  B. 
Ames : 

"Malice  as  used  in  the  books  means  sometimes 
malevolence,  sometimes  absence  of  excuse,  and  some- 
times absence  of  motive  for  the  public  good.  If  so 
'slippery'  a  word,  to  borrow  Lord  Bowen's  adjective, 
were  eliminated  from  legal  arguments  and  opinions, 
only  good  would  result."^    Sir  Frederick  Pollock  calls 

1  Report  of  Royal  Commission  on  Trade  Disputes,  etc.,  p.  88. 
^Harvard  Law  Review,  v.  i8,  p.  422. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT        221 

it  **that  perplexed  and  perplexing  word.'^^  *'It  seldom 
has  any  meaning  except  a  misleading  one,"  affirmed  Sir 
James  Fitzjames  Stephen,  in  Allen  v.  Flood. 

Dr.  Bishop  wrote  of  "wilfully"  and  "maliciously": 

"Their  appropriate  place  is  in  criminal  pleading.  In 
discussions  of  the  law  Itself  they  are  sometimes  neces- 
sarily employed;  but  their  principal  uses  are  found  to 
he  to  overcloud  and  bewilder  the  mind  of  the  reader, 
and  to  convey  away  from  the  writer^s  mind  ideas  too 
misty  for  distinct  utterance,"^ 

The  London  Times,  expressing  the  lay  conception, 
spoke  of  malice  as  "that  word  which  means  so  much 
and  so  little,  and  the  learning  about  which  Is  half  the 
stock  In  trade  of  an  English  lawyer."^ 

"Sometimes,  Indeed,  I  rather  doubt  whether  I  quite 
understand  that  unhappy  expression  myself,"  admitted 
Lord  MacNaughten  In  Allen  v.  Flood.  Sir  William 
Markly  declared  that  the  refusal  to  consider  this 
"phantom,"  "malice  at  law,"  would  save  endless  con- 
fusion.* 

Many  affirm  that  this  confusion  in  the  word  Itself 
leads  to  a  confusion  In  the  whole  law  of  civil  liability, 
and  to  injurious  results.  The  unwisdom  of  allowing 
the  consideration  of  this  principle  was  vigorously 
enunciated  by  Mr.  Arthur  Cohen,  In  his  memorandum 
before  the  Royal  Commission  of  Great  Britain: 

"To  Introduce  such  a  fundamental  principle  (the 
theory  that  intentionally  to  cause  damage  to  another 
person  In  the  absence  of  reasonable  cause  is  an  action- 
able tort)  would  be  in  the  highest  degree  unwise  and 
inexpedient.  Inasmuch  as  It  would  make  the  whole  law 
of  torts  vague  and  uncertain,  until  a  great  quantity  of 

*  14  Law  Quarterly  Review,  p.  132. 

^  I  Bishop  Criminal  Law,  Section  261.     Italics  are  the  author's. 
^London  Times  Editorial,  July  27,  1895. 

*  Elements  of  Law,  5  Ed.,  Sec.  687;  Cooley,  Torts,  2  Ed.,  p.  692. 


222  BOYCOTTS 

new  judge-made  law  had  determined  In  what  cases 
there  are  and  in  what  cases  there  are  not  reasonable 
cause  and  justification."^ 

In  fact,  it  is  stated,  the  use  of  the  word  is  entirely 
unnecessary  and  futile.     Mr.  Krauthoff  again  states: 

**The  scope  of  these  definitions,  when  closely  an- 
alyzed, is  that  *malice  consists  in  doing  a  wrongful  act 
to  the  damage  of  another.'  And,  self-evidently,  that 
word  is  wholly  unnecessary  to  explain  jhat  thought."^ 

In  the  discussion  of  the  civil  remedy  for  boycotts, 
much  controversy  has  occurred  in  American  courts  as 
to  whether  malice  or  motive  is  in  truth  an  element  that 
can  be  considered  in  an  action  for  damages.  Many 
jurisdictions  have  answered  that  question  in  the  nega- 
tive. Even  though  it  can  be  proved  that  unionists 
combine  maliciously  to  injure  the  trade  of  another, 
there  can  be  no  legal  redress,  they  afSrm.  The  incon- 
sistency of  making  motive  an  element  in  civil  liability  is 
thus  stated  by  Mr.  John  H.  Wigmore : 

"There  is  no  more  persistent  and  yet  unfounded 
notion  than  that  motive,  I  do  not  say  intention,  can 
become  the  turning  point  of  civil  liability,  no  notion 
more  fitted  to  reverse  legal  relations  and  to  make  chaos 
out  of  definite  principles."^ 

Mr.  Darling  is  of  the  opinion  that,  "generally 
speaking,  malice  does  not  give  a  cause  of  action,  except 
by  legislation,  and  in  the  few  instances  of  defamation, 
etc.,  which  has  a  special  explanation."* 

That  malice,  at  least  "in  its  popular  sense,  namely, 
as  meaning  hatred,  ill  will,  or  other  morally  bad  mo- 
tive, can  no  more  transform  an  otherwise  lawful  act 
into  a  wrong  than  the  best  of  motives  can  justify  the  in- 

*  Report  of  Royal  Com.,  etc.,  p.  30, 

'Krauthoff,  Am.  Bar  Assoc,  Proceedings  of,  1898,  p.  350. 
'American  Law  Rev.,  v.  21,  p.  520. 

*  American  Law  Register,  v.  43,  p.  115. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT        223 

vaslon  of  another's  right"  is  the  belief  of  Mr.  L.  C. 
Krauthoff/  Judge  Mitchell  of  Minnesota  is  of  like 
opinion  : 

"If  the  act  be  lawful, — one  which  the  party  has  a 
legal  right  to  do, — the  fact  that  he  may  he  actuated  by 
an  improper  motive  does  not  render  it  unlawful.  As 
said  in  one  case,  'the  exercise  by  one  man  of  a  legal 
right  cannot  be  a  legal  wrong  to  another,'  or,  as  ex- 
pressed in  another  case,  'malicious  motives  make  a  had 
cause  worse,  hut  they  cannot  make  that  wrong  which 
in  its  own  essence  is  lawful.*  "^  Many  are  the  Ameri- 
can and  English  decisions  almost  identical  in  wording. 

The  word  was  invented  in  legal  procedure,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  L.  C.  Krauthoff,  as  a  result  of  the  recog- 
nition of  the  errors  underlying  the  notions  of  mediaeval 
days,  that  the  civil  remedy  was  available  only  for  such 
torts  as  involved  the  elements  or  essence  of  criminal 
acts,  and,  at  the  other  extreme,  that  the  law  gave  a 
remedy  for  every  act  causing  loss  to  another.  An 
intermediate  ground  was  naturally  sought  for. 

"Conservatism  prompted  the  tendency  to  adopt  a 
portion  of  each  of  two  theories,"  he  declared,  "at  least 
in  spirit;  and  it  is  believed  that  in  this  way  an  expres- 
sion has  crept  into  the  reports,  precedents  and  treatises 
which  has  done  more  to  confuse  and  obscure  legal 
principles  than  perhaps  all  other  verbiage  combined — 
the  word  'malice'  and  its  derivatives."^ 

In  the  few  instances  in  which  malice  Is  used  in  tort 
proceedings,  it  is  employed  in  a  different  manner  from 
its  use  in  conspiracies  in  labor  disputes.  In  most  other 
instances  malice  does  not  render  a  legal  act  illegal,  but 
operates  only  in  those  cases  where  the  act  is,  without 
the  element  of  malice,  considered  a  wrongful  one.     It 

^  Krauthoff,  op.  cit.,  p.  339. 

'Bohn  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Mollis,  Minn.,  1893,  55  N.  W.  11 19,  1121. 

'Krauthoff,  op.  cit.,  p.  338. 


224  BOYCOTTS 

deals  with  external,  not  internal,  standards  of  conduct. 
Mr.  Krauthoff  declares  on  this  point: 

*'The  measure  of  damage  apart,  there  is  no  phase 
of  the  law  of  torts  in  which  malice,  in  the  sense  of  an 
active  intention  to  harm,  is  an  essential  ingredient. 
The  only  intent,  so  called,  which  enters  into  a  cause 
of  action  for  tort  is  that  which  the  law  attaches  to  and 
deduces  from  the  doing  of  an  act  in  question — the  ex- 
ternal standard.  .  .  .  ^A  wrongful  act  done  intention- 
ally  and  without  justifiable  cause  or  excuse  has  no  refer- 
ence to  a  mental  state  or  to  a  motive  which  impelled 
the  action,  but  merely  defines  the  illegal  inference  from 
the  unlawful  act  done."^ 

In  tort  the  doctrine  is  used  in  malicious  prosecution 
and  in  privileged  communications  in  libel.  In  both 
these  cases,  before  one  can  be  convicted,  there  must  be 
proof  of  a  wrongful  act.  They  relate  to  a  liability  for 
false  statements,  and  the  question  arises  as  to  what 
degree  of  fault  is  necessary  to  create  liability  there- 
for. 

In  slander  of  title,  another  case  in  which  malice  is 
supposed  to  operate,  the  action  is  said  to  be  a  species 
of  deceit  in  which  scienter,  a  sense  of  knowledge  but 
not  of  motive,  is  in  issue.  Special  damage  must  here 
be  shown.  According  to  Krauthoff,  the  action  for  en- 
ticing a  servant  from  his  master  originated  when  the 
status  of  the  servant  was  akin  to  property,  and  when 
the  accepted  rule  was  that  "every  master  has,  by  his 
contract,  purchased  for  a  valid  consideration  the  serv- 
ices of  his  domestics."  (Based  on  Statutes  23,  Edw. 
III.)  Persuasion  here  can  only  be  actionable  where 
illegal  means  are  used.  In  this  action  malice  means 
nothing  more  than  notice,  according  to  Judge  Cromp- 
ton    (Lumley  v.  Gye,   2  E.  and  B.,   216).^     Many, 

^  Krauthoff,  op.  cit.,  p.  343. 

2  For  fuller  discussion  of  meaning  of  malice  in  various  actions,  see 
ibid.,  pp.  345-349. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT        225 

therefore,  argue  that  malice  should  not  be  considered 
In  boycott  cases.  Already  an  exceedingly  large  num- 
ber of  judges  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  It 
should  not  be  considered  an  element  In  tort,  and  many, 
Indeed,  that  It  should  not  be  applied  In  criminal  or 
equitable  procedure  Involving  the  boycott  or  general 
conspiracy  cases.  The  word  Is  not  understood.  Its 
use  leads  to  confusion  of  thought,  to  uncertainty  as  to 
the  rights  of  Individuals,  to  too  great  power  on  the 
part  of  judge  and  jury,  and  to  a  discrimination  against 
labor  In  Its  struggles.  If  It  can  be  considered  only  In 
cases  where  a  wrong  has  been  committed,  Its  use  is 
unnecessary. 

It  is  considered  an  element  In  but  few  torts,  and  not 
In  the  sense  that  it  is  used  In  boycott  cases.  The  doc- 
trine, furthermore,  Is  not  employed  in  the  same  man- 
ner in  cases  of  trade  competition.  If  it  were,  a  very 
large  proportion  of  the  business  of  the  country  would 
constantly  be  interfered  with  by  the  law  of  conspiracy. 

To  the  argument  that  boycotts  are  waged  without 
justifiable  cause  and  are  against  public  policy,  the  de- 
fender of  the  boycott  declares  that  that  contention  can 
only  be  proved  by  a  close  examination  of  the  conditions 
of  labor,  the  relation  of  its  condition  to  the  well  being 
of  society,  the  weapons  at  labor's  command,  the  effec- 
tiveness of  the  boycott  In  obtaining  better  conditions, 
the  weapons  used  by  the  employing  class  necessitating 
the  use  of  the  boycott,  and  many  other  problems  con- 
nected with  social  and  economic  progress.  This  ex- 
amination, he  contends,  has  not  been  made  by  the 
judiciary.  If  made  Impartially  It  Is  his  belief  that  boy- 
cotting would  prove  to  be  a  justifiable  activity. 


Doctrine  of  Interest 

In  many  instances  where  the  doctrine  of  malice  or 
of  justifiable  cause  has  been  applied  by  the  courts  in 


226  BOYCOTTS 

cases  of  boycotting  and  blacklisting  by  business  men,  it 
has  been  decided  that  these  boycotts  did  not  contain 
the  element  of  malice,  or  were  justified  because  the  de- 
fendant had  a  legitimate  interest  to  uphold.  Their 
interest  in  increasing  their  business  or  in  obtaining 
good  help  was  sufficient  to  eliminate  all  questions  of 
malice.  Not  so,  however,  when  boycotts  in  labor  dis- 
putes were  concerned.  Where,  asked  the  courts,  could 
be  found  the  interest  which  the  striker  or  unionist  had 
to  safeguard  by  means  of  his  boycotting  campaign? 
Because  the  contract  relation  between  the  striker  and 
employer  had  ceased  they  failed  to  recognize  that  thfe 
men  still  had  a  considerable  interest  in  the  conduct  of 
the  firm.  Referring  especially  to  labor  boycotts,  Mr. 
DarHng  explains:^ 

"Supposing  a  case  of  inducing  is  made,  that  Is,  sup- 
posing the  defendants  ask  to  have  the  plaintiffs  dis- 
charged, the  defendants,  if  they  are  fellow  workmen 
with  the  plaintiffs,  or  represent  fellow  workmen,  are 
acting  within  their  rights,  because  they  have  an  interest 
in  who  shall  be  their  fellows;  their  safety,  comfort, 
convenience  and  personal  pleasure  are  concerned." 

The  same  is  true  with  attempts  on  the  part  of  work- 
ers to  induce  others  to  cease  to  patronize  their  former 
employers.  The  boycotters  cannot  be  placed  in  the 
same  category  with  the  outside  public  who  have  no 
interest  to  subserve.  The  success  of  their  struggle  will 
mean  better  hours,  wages  and  other  conditions  for 
large  numbers  of  them.  The  same  is  the  case,  though 
perhaps  to  a  less  extent,  with  other  members  of  organ- 
ized labor  who  assist  in  the  boycotting.  In  the  modern 
complex  industrial  world  it  is  becoming  more  and  more 
true  that  the  interest  of  one  worker  is  the  interest  of 
all,  and  the  outcome  of  one  struggle  may  vitally  affect 
the  conditions  of  employment  in  other  lines  which  seem 
to  be  but  remotely  related. 

^  Am.  Law  Register,  v.  43,  p.  95. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT        227 

The  argument  that  the  workers  have  no  such  In- 
terest Is  on  a  par  with  that  formerly  so  prevalent 
among  employers — "I  am  going  to  run  my  business  as 
I  see  fit,  and  will  brook  no  dictation  from  my  hands." 

Doctrine  of  Free  Speech  and  Press 

That  the  right  of  free  speech  and  free  press  is  denied 
when  unionists  are  enjoined  from  stating  their  stories 
to  the  public  and  asking  for  Its  support  Is  the  firm 
belief  of  many  well-known  jurists.  These  claim  that 
if  a  wrong  has  been  done  to  the  employers  through  the 
Issuance  of  false  statements  the  latter  can  call  Into  play 
the  law  of  libel.  They  contend  that  the  possibility  of 
not  being  able  to  recover  damages  in  a  suit  at  law 
does  not  warrant  the  injunctive  process,  as  such  a 
holding  would  prejudice  the  poor  man.  One  of  the 
most  vigorous  arguments  against  the  use  of  the  injunc- 
tion to  prevent  the  publication  of  a  boycott,  on  the 
ground  that  such  use  would  seriously  interfere  with 
the  right  of  free  speech  and  free  press  appears  in  the 
well-known  Missouri  case,  as  follows: 

''The  security  of  individual  rights  .  .  .  cannot  be 
too  frequently  declared,  nor  In  too  many  forms  of 
words,"  writes  Judge  Sherwood,  quoting  Cooley,  "nor 
is  it  possible  to  guard  too  vigilantly  against  the  en- 
croachment of  power,  nor  to  watch  with  too  lively  a 
suspicion  the  propensity  of  persons  in  authority  to 
break  through  the  cobweb  chains  of  paper  constitu- 
tions."    (2  Story,  Const.,  Sec.  1938.) 

"Wherever  the  authority  of  Injunction  begins,  there 
the  right  of  free  speech,  free  writing  or  free  publication 
ends.  No  halfway  house  stands  on  the  highway  be- 
tween absolute  prevention  and  absolute  freedom.  .  .  . 
Nor  does  it  .  .  .  change  the  complexion  of  this  case 
by  reason  of  Its  being  alleged  .  .  .  that  the  defend- 
ants and  each  of  them  are  without  means.  .  .  The 
Constitution  Is  no  respecter  of  persons.    The  impecuni- 


228  BOYCOTTS 

ous  man  'who  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head'  has  as 
good  right  to  free  speech,  etc.,  as  the  wealthiest  man  in 
the  community.  ...  In  short,  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  free  speech,  etc.,  is  as  free  from  outside  inter- 
ference or  restriction  as  if  no  civil  recovery  could  be 
had  or  punishment  inflicted  because  of  its  unwarranted 
exercise.  .   .  . 

**If  these  defendants  are  not  permitted  to  tell  the 
story  of  their  wrongs,  or,  if  you  please,  their  supposed 
wrongs,  by  word  of  mouth  or  with  pen  or  print,  and  to 
endeavor  to  persuade  others  to  aid  theyt  by  all  peace- 
able means  in  securing  redress  of  such  wrongs,  what 
becomes  of  free  speech,  and  what  of  personal  liber tyP 
The  fact  that  in  exercising  that  freedom  they  thereby 
do  plaintiff  an  actionable  injury  does  not  go  a  hair 
toward  a  diminution  of  their  right  of  free  speech,  etc., 
for  the  exercise  of  which,  if  resulting  in  such  injury,  the 
Constitution  makes  them  expressly  responsible.  But 
such  responsibility  is  utterly  incompatible  with  author- 
ity in  a  court  of  equity  to  prevent  such  responsibility 
from  occurring.'* 

Judge  Sherwood  mentioned  the  existence  of  the  Bill 
of  Rights  in  Missouri,  and  quoted  Judge  Cooley  as 
declaring  that  while  these  provisions  continued  In  force 
*'they  are  to  remain  absolute  and  unchangeable  rules 
of  action  and  decision  .  .  .  and  all  laws  contrary 
thereto  are  void." 

Judge  Garoutte  of  California  takes  the  position  that 
free  speech  is  unlimited,  and  cannot  be  enjoined  on  the 
mere  ground  that  it  might  injure  another. 

"The  right  of  the  citizen  to  freely  speak,  write  and 
publish  his  sentiments  is  unlimited,  but  he  Is  responsible 
at  the  hands  of  the  law  for  an  abuse  of  that  right.  He 
shall  have  no  censor  over  him  to  whom  he  must  apply 
for  permission  to  speak,  write  or  publish.  ...  It  is 
patent  that  this  right  to  speak,  write  and  publish  cannot 

^  Marx  &  Haas  v.  Watson,  Missouri,  1902,  6y  S.  W.  391,  394,  395, 
396.     Italics  are  the  author's. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT        229 

be  abused  until  it  is  exercised,  and  before  it  is  exercised 
there  can  be  no  responsibility.  The  purpose  of  this 
provision  of  the  Constitution  was  the  abolishment  of 
the  censorship,  and  for  the  court  to  act  as  censor  is 
directly  violative  of  that  purpose."^ 

Referring  to  Story^s  Equity  of  Jurisprudence ^  Sec. 
948a,  he  continues: 

"But  the  utmost  extent  to  which  courts  of  equity 
have  gone,  in  restraining  any  publication  by  injunction, 
has  been  upon  the  principle  of  protecting  the  rights  of 
property  in  the  books  or  letters  sought  to  be  published. 
They  have  never  assumed,  at  least  since  the  destruction 
of  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber,  to  restrain  any  publi- 
cation which  purports  to  be  literary  work  upon  the 
mere  ground  that  it  is  of  a  libelous  character  and  tends 
to  the  degrading  or  injuring  of  the  reputation  or  busi- 
ness of  the  plaintiff  who  seeks  relief  against  such  pub- 
lication." 

"The  right  of  free  speech,"  states  Darling,  "implies 
the  right  to  influence  persons  as  to  how  they  shall  exer- 
cise their  legal  rights.  .  .  .  When  one  has  the  right 
to  choose  one  of  two  courses,  another  has  the  right  to 
address  him,  to  argue  the  matter  and  to  request  him  to 
choose  one  course  rather  than  the  other.  .  .  .  The 
law  does  not  put  a  ban  on  the  communication  of  ideas 
between  responsible  human  beings."^ 

Referring  to  the  clause  in  the  constitution  of  the 
State  of  Montana :  "No  law  shall  be  passed  impairing 
the  freedom  of  speech;  every  person  shall  be  free  to 
speak,  write  or  publish  whatever  he  will  on  any  sub- 
ject, being  responsible  for  all  abuse  of  that  liberty," 
Judge  HoUoway,  in  the  Lindsay  case  (1908),  declares 
that  "the  individual  citizen  cannot  be  prevented  from 
speaking,  writing  or  publishing  whatever  he  will  on  any 
subject."      He   maintains  that  the   insolvency  of   the 

^  Daily  v.  Supreme  Court,  Calif.,  i8g6,  44  Pac.  458,  459. 
^American  Law  Register,  v.  43,  N.  S.,  pp.   107,  108. 


230  BOYCOTTS 

defendants  made  no  difference  in  the  carrying  out  of 
these  constitutional  provisions,  and  concludes: 

**To  declare  that  a  court  may  say  that  an  individual 
shall  not  publish  a  particular  item  is  to  say  that  the 
court  may  determine  in  advance  just  what  the  citizen 
may  or  may  not  speak  or  write  upon  a  given  subject — 
is,  in  fact,  to  say  that  such  court  is  a  censor  of  speech 
as  well  as  the  press." 

Chief  Justice  Shepard  quotes  with  approval  Justice 
Fenner  of  Louisiana  in  his  belief  that  the  press,  under 
the  reactionary  decisions  given  by  some  courts,  "might 
be  completely  muzzled,  and  its  just  influence  upon  the 
public  opinion  completely  paralyzed."^ 

Threats  and  Coercion 

Boycotts  have  frequently  been  condemned  by  the 
courts  on  the  ground  that  such  illegal  means  as  threats, 
intimidation  and  coercion  were  employed  in  their  con- 
duct. In  many  cases,  it  is  avowed,  the  reasoning  of 
these  judges  often  indicates  an  argument  in  a  circle, 
and  involves  the  wrong  application  of  the  word 
"threat,''  an  application  that  cannot  be  found  in  trade 
competition  or  in  other  classes  of  cases. 

The  following  argument  against  a  compound  boy- 
cott is  often  heard:  "A  compound  boycott  is  illegal 
because  it  involves  a  threat,  and  to  threaten  another  is 
to  use  illegal  means."  If  one  asks  what  is  the  nature 
of  the  threat  involved  in  this  boycott,  the  reply  is: 
"It  is  a  threat  to  boycott  a  third  person,  unless  he 
ceases  dealings  with  (or  boycotts)  the  boycotted 
firm."  Thus  an  attempt  is  made  to  declare  the  ille- 
gality of  a  boycott  on  the  ground  that  it  involves  a 
threat  to  boycott. 

However,  to  threaten  to  do  a  thing  is  not  unlawful 
unless  the  threat  is  to  do  an  illegal  act.     There  is 

*33  App.  Cases,  D.  of  C,  130,  132. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT        231 

nothing  Illegal,  for  Instance,  In  threatening  not  to  pur- 
chase a  box  of  candy. 

'^Threats  and  Intimidation,"  declared  a  Tennessee 
judge,  "must  be  taken  In  their  legal  sense.  In  law  a 
threat  is  a  declaration  of  an  Intention  or  determination 
to  injure  another  by  the  commission  of  some  unlawful 
act,  and  an  intimidation  Is  the  act  of  making  one  timid 
or  fearful  by  such  declaration.  //  the  act  intended  to 
be  done  is  not  unlawful,  then  the  declaration  is  not  a 
threat  in  law,  and  the  effect  thereof  is  not  intimidation 
in  a  legal  sense/'^ 

"As  a  general  rule,  even  if  subject  to  some  excep- 
tions," declared  Judge  Holmes,^  "what  you  may  do  in 
a  certain  event  you  may  threaten  to  do — that  Is,  give 
warning  of  your  intent  to  do  In  that  event,  and  thus 
allow  the  other  person  the  chance  of  avoiding  the  con- 
sequences." 

Thus  Judge  Alton  B.  Parker,  In  the  same  vein,  de- 
clares that,  "when  a  man  proposes  to  do  that  which  he 
has  a  legal  right  to  do,  there  Is  no  law  which  prevents 
him  from  telling  another,  who  will  be  affected  by  his 
act,  of  his  intention." 

It  thus  appears  that  there  is  no  threat  in  a  legal 
sense  unless  there  is  an  expressed  intention  to  do  an 
unlawful  act.  The  only  threat  Implied  In  the  second- 
ary boycott  against  a  third  party  Is  a  threat  to  boycott. 
If  one  begins  with  the  assumption  that  "to  boycott"  Is 
illegal,  then  a  threat  to  boycott  Is  a  threat  to  do  an 
illegal  act,  and  Is  also  illegal.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
one  assumes  that  "to  boycott"  Is  legal,  then  a  threat 
to  boycott  Is  an  expressed  Intention  to  do  a  legal  act, 
and  is  legal.  It  is  only  possible,  therefore,  to  reach 
the  conclusion  that  a  boycott.  Involving  a  threat  to  boy- 
cott a  third  party.  Is  Illegal  If  one  begins  with  the  as- 

1  Payne  v.  Railroad  Co.,  Tenn.,  1884,  49  Am.  Rep.  666,  674.    Ital- 
ics are  the  author's. 

2  Vegelahn  v.  Guntner,  Mass.,  1896,  44  N.  E.  1077,  1081. 


232  BOYCOTTS 

sumption  that  to  boycott  is  illegal,  and,  if  one  argues 
from  that  premise,  why  is  it  necessary  to  introduce  the 
doctrine  of  threats?  The  whole  reasoning  is  in  a 
circle. 

Mr.  Gompers  thus  sums  up  the  legal  contention : 

"It  was  said  .  .  .  'The  word  in  itself  implies  a 
threat.'  Granted,  but  what  kind  of  a  threat?  A  threat 
to  boycott.  To  say  that  boycotting  is  criminal  be- 
cause the  word  boycott  implies  a  threat  to  boycott  is 
truly  extraordinary  reasoning.  ...  It  is  an  attempt 
at  proving  a  less  doubtful  proposition  Dy  assuming  a 
more  doubtful  one  to  be  indisputably  true."  ^ 

'When,  for  'conspiracy,'  we  substitute  'agreement,' 
and  for  'threats,'  'a  notice,'  the  whole  fabric  of  the 
plaintiff's  case  falls  to  the  ground,"  declared  Judge 
Caldwell.2 

The  doctrine  of  coercion  and  intimidation  in  boy- 
cott disputes,  in  many  instances,  depends  on  the  fore- 
going reasoning  as  to  what  constitutes  threats.  To 
force  a  dealer  to  cease  relations  with  the  boycotted 
firm  through  threats  constitutes  coercion  and  intimida- 
tion, it  is  claimed.  However,  if  the  threat  is  one  to 
do  a  lawful  thing,  it  cannot  result  in  coercion  as  ap- 
plied in  law.  "A  man  may  threaten  to  do  that  which 
the  law  says  he  may  do,  provided  that  ...  his  mo- 
tive is  to  help  himself,"  declares  a  New  York  judge.^ 

The  coercion  generally  used  simply  gives  a  merchant 
a  choice  as  to  whether  he  desires  to  continue  his 
dealings  with  the  boycotted  firm,  thus  losing  the  cus- 
tom of  unionists  and  their  friends,  or  whether  he  pre- 
fers to  cease  his  profitable  relations  with  the  firm  and 
retain  a  certain  patronage.  Every  day  merchants  are 
forced  to  just  such  choices  by  their  competitors.  When- 

1  Industrial  Commission  Report,  v.  7,  p.  636. 
'  Oxley  Stave  Co.  v.  Hopkins,  1897,  83  Fed.  912,  924. 
3  Park  &  Sons  Co.  v.  National  Drug  Assoc,  N.  Y.,  1903,  175  N.  Y. 
1,  20. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  BOYCOTT        233 

ever  a  competitor  lowers  his  prices,  the  merchant  must 
either  do  likewise,  thus  losing  a  certain  profit  on  his 
sales,  or  continue  his  former  prices  and  lose  a  part  of 
his  patronage.  Yet  the  lowering  of  prices  is  not  con- 
sidered a  coercive  measure.  The  man  has  to  choose 
between  two  evils,  but  his  choice  is  left  free. 

In  justifying  a  trade  boycott  and  denying  the  exist- 
ence of  coercion,  a  Minnesota  judge  declares: 

"If  it  (plaintiff  company)  valued  the  trade  of  the 
members  of  the  association  higher  than  that  of  the 
non-dealers  at  the  same  points,  it  would  probably  con- 
clude to  pay  (the  commission  exacted  by  the  associa- 
tion) ;  otherwise  not.  ...  By  the  provision  of  the 
by-laws,  if  they  (the  members  of  the  association) 
traded  with  the  plaintiff,  they  were  liable  to  be  ex- 
pelled, but  this  simply  meant  to  cease  to  be  members. 
It  was  wholly  a  matter  of  their  own  free  choice,  which 
they  preferred."^ 

In  view  of  the  inadequate  and  illogical  application 
of  the  doctrines  of  combination,  of  illegal  object,  of 
immediate  and  ultimate  results,  of  malice,  of  justifiable 
cause  and  of  threats  and  coercion  to  the  boycott,  claim 
the  advocates  of  this  weapon,  the  secondary,  and  that 
form  of  the  compound  boycott  not  involving  violence, 
should  be  held  legal  by  the  courts  of  the  land. 

^American  Law  Register,  v.  43,  p.  96. 


CHAPTER   XIV 

ATTITUDE  OF  COURTS  TOWARD  BOYCOTTING  AND 
REMEDIES    APPLIED  , 

Attitude  of  Our  Courts  Toward  Boycotting 

\    In  spite  of  the  many  reasons  urged  for  the  legaliza- 

^tlon  of  the  boycott,  it  must  be  confessed  that  at  the 

^present  time  the  great  weight  of  authority  both  in 

^   federal  and  state  courts  has  been  against  the  secondary 

and  compound  boycott. 

If  we  first  consider  the  decisions  in  the  federal  courts, 
we  will  find  the  boycott  opposed  at  practically  every 
point.  Twice  has  the  question  been  brought  before  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  In  both  of  these 
cases,  however,  United  States  statutes  have  been  in- 
volved, and  the  court  has  decided  nothing  as  to  the 
application  of  the  common  law  doctrine  of  conspiracy 
applied  by  the  state  courts  to  this  problem.  In  the 
recent  Danbury  Hatters'  decision,  made  in  1908,  it 
was  held  that  boycotting,  if  interstate  in  its  nature, 
could  be  reached  by  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law. 
Prior  to  this  decision  came  the  Debs  case  of  1895,  in 
which  the  boycotting  indulged  in  during  the  Pullman 
strike  was  declared  to  have  been  in  violation  of  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Law  and  to  have  interfered  with 
the  United  States  mails.  While  the  contempt  case  con- 
nected with  the  boycott  of  the  Buck's  Stove  Company 
also  came  before  this  tribunal,  the  question  decided 
was  largely  a  technical  one  as  to  whether  the  boycotted 

234 


ATTITUDE  OF  COURTS  235 

company  or  the  state  could  bring  a  suit  for  contempt. 
The  court,  however,  took  occasion  to  state  that,  in  its 
belief,  the  restraining  of  publications,  etc.,  whereby  a 
boycott  was  unlawfully  continued,  did  not  constitute 
an  abridgment  of  liberty  of  speech  or  of  the  press. 
In  the  last  named  case,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  and  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  that 
district  had  already  decided  that  the  "We  Don't 
Patronize"  list  could  be  enjoined,  as  well  as  other 
forms  of  secondary  and  compound  boycotting. 

The  states  in  which  some  of  the  boycotts  considered 
by  the  federal  courts  have  originated  are:  Cahfornia, 
Georgia,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Louisiana,  Missouri,  New 
York,  South  Dakota  and  Wisconsin.  Prior  to  the  rail- 
road boycott  cases  of  1893  to  1895,  one  federal  court 
held  that  the  Sherman  law  was  applicable  and  one  that 
it  was  inapplicable  to  boycotting.  A  typographical 
union  of  Ohio  was  also  condemned  for  using  this 
weapon.  The  railroad  boycotts  of  the  nineties  have 
already  been  described.  In  the  last  few  years,  ex- 
cepting the  Buck's  Stove  and  Hatters'  cases,  the  courts 
have  given  chief  attention  to  the  labor  boycotts  in  the 
building  trades.  In  one  instance  the  courts  have  gone 
so  far  as  to  hold  that  it  was  lawful  for  unionists  to  per- 
suade fellow  unionists  in  other  factories  to  refuse  to 
work,  if  their  employer  continued  to  manufacture  goods 
for  the  boycotted  firm. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  United  States  Supreme  Court 
has  delivered  an  opinion  in  the  Adair  case  which  many 
unionists  claim  has  virtually  legalized  the  blackUst. 
Forms  of  trade  boycotts  have  also  been  pronounced 
legal  in  South  Dakota  and  Alabama,  though  illegal  in 
some  of  the  other  jurisdictions. 

While  there  is  not  such  general  agreement  regarding 
the  illegality  of  the  boycott  in  the  state  courts,  and 
while  several  recent  decisions  have  gone  a  long  way 
toward  legalizing  it,  the  vast  majority  of  state  courts 


236  BOYCOTTS 

have,  up  to  the  present  time,  vigorously  condemned  it. 

As  nearly  as  can  be  ascertained  at  the  present  writ- 
ing, the  highest  courts  have  flatly  decided  against  boy- 
cotting of  various  kinds  in  some  fourteen  states.  In 
three  states,  California,  Montana  and  New  York,  the 
secondary  boycott  has  been  pronounced  legal.  In  the 
first  two  named,  that  form  of  the  compound  boycott 
involving  threats  to  boycott  a  third  party,  if  he  con- 
tinues to  deal  with  the  boycotted  firm,  is  also  con- 
sidered legal. 

In  some  twenty-five  states  of  the  union  the  courts 
of  last  appeal  have  not  as  yet  passed  upon  the  legality 
of  boycotts  in  labor  disputes.  In  four  of  these,  how- 
ever, there  are  statutes  specifically  condemning  boy- 
cotts, and  in  six  others  the  decisions  on  trade  boycotts, 
blacklists,  etc.,  indicate  that,  if  malice,  threats  or  lack 
of  legitimate  interest  are  shown  in  the  conduct  of  the 
boycott,  the  use  of  this  weapon  will  probably  be  pro- 
nounced illegal.  One  of  the  lower  courts  in  another 
of  these  states  has  decided  against  boycotting,  so  that 
it  might  he  stated  with  some  degree  of  accuracy  that 
some  twenty-five  states  have  definitely  disapproved  of 
the  use  of  this  device. 

In  two  of  the  twenty-five  states,  Rhode  Island  and 
Maine,  the  liberality  of  the  courts  regarding  trade 
boycotts  would  indicate  that,  if  the  same  line  of  reason- 
ing was  applied,  the  legality  of  boycotts  in  labor  dis- 
putes would  be  affirmed.  The  lower  court  In  still  an- 
other state,  Oklahoma,  has  permitted  a  secondary  boy- 
cott. Perhaps  a  total  of  five  or  six  states  can  there- 
fore he  classed  as  favoring  the  employment  of  the  sec- 
ondary  or  mild  forms  of  the  compound  hoycott. 

More  specifically,  the  twelve  states  In  which  the 
courts  have  flatly  decided  against  secondary  or  com- 
pound boycotts  of  various  kinds  are:  Connecticut, 
Massachusetts  and  Vermont  In  New  England;  Mary- 
land, New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  in  the  Middle  At- 


ATTITUDE  OF  COURTS  237 

lantic  States;  Virginia  in  the  South,  and  Illinois,  Michi- 
gan, Minnesota,  Missouri  and  Washington  in  the 
West.  Those  where  labor  boycotts  only  have  been 
condemned  are  Louisiana  and  Wisconsin.  In  most  of 
the  states  cited  threats  were  proved,  although  threats 
to  deprive  third  parties  of  patronage  should  they  not 
accede  to  the  demands  are  sufficient  to  spell  out  illegal- 
ity. Persuasion,  providing  malice  can  be  worked  out, 
might  be  sufficient  in  some  of  the  states  to  secure  the 
condemnation  of  this  weapon,  among  them  New  Jersey, 
Illinois  and  Washington. 

The  secondary  boycotts  have  been  pronounced  legal 
in  New  York,  Montana  and  California.  The  most 
noteworthy  of  the  cases  in  point  were  Lindsay  and 
Company  v.  Montana  Federation  of  Labor  (Montana, 
1908),  Parkinson  and  Company  v.  Building  Trades 
Council  (California,  1908),  Pierce  v.  Stablemen's 
Union  (California,  1909),  National  Protective  Asso- 
ciation V.  Cummings  (New  York,  1902),  and  Mills  v. 
United  States  Printing  Company  (New  York,  Appel- 
late Division,  1904).    These  are  described  elsewhere. 

The  courts  in  Montana,  Missouri  and  California 
have  held  that  circulars  advertising  the  boycott  cannot 
be  enjoined.  A  lower  court  in  Ohio  has  decided  like- 
wise. In  New  York  there  is  considerable  liberality 
about  sending  circulars.  In  Maryland  and  Pennsyl- 
vania, if  boycott  circulars  state  only  the  truth  con- 
cerning the  labor  struggle,  their  publication  will  not 
be  enjoined,  nor  will  it  be  in  Minnesota  if  no  threats 
are  expressed  or  implied.  Such  publication  cannot 
be  the  cause  of  a  criminal  prosecution  in  North  Caro- 
lina. In  Oregon  irreparable  injury  must  be  proved 
before  an  injunction  is  issued  against  the  publication 
of  circulars  or  against  the  unfair  list.  In  Illinois  and 
Minnesota  unfair  lists  have  been  enjoined.  In  Ar- 
kansas a  labor  boycott,  if  unofficial,  is  not  considered 
illegal.     As  previously  stated,  laws  in  Maryland  and 


238  BOYCOTTS 

California  have  made  It  possible  to  boycott  by  peaceful 
means,  without  being  subject  to  criminal  prosecution. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  courts  of  last  resort  in  the 
following  states  have  not  passed  upon  the  legality  of 
boycotts  in  labor  disputes:  New  Hampshire,  Maine 
and  Rhode  Island  in  New  England;  Delaware  in  the 
Middle  Atlantic  States;  Iowa,  Indiana,  Kansas,  Ne- 
braska and  Ohio  of  the  North  Central  group:  Ala- 
bama, Florida,  Kentucky,  Mississippi,  Oklahoma, 
South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Texas  and  "^est  Virginia 
in  the  South  Central  States,  and  Arizona,  Colorado, 
Idaho,  New  Mexico,  North  Dakota,  South  Dakota, 
Utah  and  Wyoming  in  the  West. 

The  lower  courts  in  Ohio  have  pronounced  various 
forms  illegal,  however;  while  In  Oklahoma  and  Colo- 
rado they  are  credited  with  having  declared  certain 
forms  legal.  In  Indiana  these  lower  courts  have  pro- 
nounced a  labor  boycott  legal  when  not  attended  by 
threats. 

Among  the  aforementioned  states  where  the  highest 
courts  have  not  directly  decided  on  the  legality  of  boy- 
cotts as  applied  to  labor  disputes,  it  might  be  gathered 
from  other  decisions  that  the  New  Hampshire,  South 
Carolina  and  West  Virginia  courts  would  declare 
them  illegal,  should  they  be  considered  to  contain  the 
element  of  malice;  Kentucky,  If  threats  could  be 
shown;  Tennessee  and  Texas,  should  the  court  decide 
that  the  boycotters  had  no  legitimate  interest  to  pro- 
tect; and  Mississippi,  if  either  malice  or  threats  was 
evidenced.  In  Maine  and  Rhode  Island,  where  trade 
boycotts  have  been  favorably  treated,  certain  forms 
might  be  considered  legal. 

The  state  and  federal  courts  have  applied  criminal, 
civil  and  equitable  remedies  to  boycotting.^ 

1  The  courts  have  shown  a  somewhat  more  favorable  attitude 
toward  trade  boycotts  than  toward  boycotts  in  labor  disputes.  Trade 
boycotts  which  have  possessed  some  elements  of  coercion  have  been 
declared  legal  by  the  highest  courts  of  Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania, 


ATTITUDE  OF  COURTS  239 

Legal  Remedies 

Boycotters  may  be  prosecuted  by  the  state  In  the 
criminal  courts;  they  may  be  sued  by  the  party  injured 
In  civil  courts;  they  may  be  enjoined  by  the  courts  of 
equity  from  continuing  their  boycotting  activities. 

In  criminal  procedure  boycotters  are  arrested, 
charged  with  violating  those  statutes  which  prohibit 
criminal  conspiracy  and  other  crimes.  On  conviction 
they  are  subject  to  imprisonment  or  fine. 

In  the  application  of  the  civil  remedy,  Individually 
or  as  a  union,  they  are  sued  in  a  civil  court  for  damages 
resulting  to  the  business  of  plaintiff.    The  common  law 
principles  chiefly  are  applied  in  these  cases.     Actions 
giving  rise  to  such  cases  are  known  as  torts. 
f       Boycotters  are  also  subject  to  the  equitable  remedy 
/     of  injunction.    The  plaintiff,  in  this  case,  is  required  to 
show  that  the  injunction  is  necessary  in  order  to  pre- 
vent an  irreparable  or  unascertainable  loss;  and  that 
there  is  no  adequate  remedy  at  law — that  the  resort  to 
the  law  court  would  necessitate  a  multiplicity  of  suits 
or  would  not  lead  to  a  recovery  of  damages  on  account 
i     of  the  irresponsible  character  of  defendants.     If  the 
\    Injunction  is  not  obeyed,  contempt  proceedings  can  be 
resorted  to. 

Recently  the  boycott  has  been  brought  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  law.     If  found 

Tennessee,  Maine  and  West  Virginia.  In  about  fifteen  states  they 
have  been  pronounced  illegal.  A  number  of  the  lower  courts  have 
also  declared  their  legality.  In  Pennsylvania  and  Minnesota,  where 
trade  boycotts  have  received  the  approval  of  the  courts,  boycotts  by 
laborers  have  been  frowned  upon.  Courts  in  Massachusetts,  New 
Jersey,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Texas  and  Kentucky  have  also  refused  to 
declare  certain  forms  of  blacklists  illegal.  In  Illinois,  of  the  afore- 
mentioned states,  a  lower  court  has,  however,  pronounced  blacklist- 
ing illegal. 

Inasmuch  as  the  facts  in  the  cases  involving  boycotts  in  labor 
disputes  and  in  the  trade  boycott  and  blacklisting  cases  are  so 
widely  different,  however,  it  is  difficult  to  draw  any  broad  gen- 
eralizations regarding  the  application  of  legal  principles  to  these 
groups. 


240  BOYCOTTS 

guilty,  under  this  act,  the  defendants  are  liable  for 
treble  the  amount  of  damages.  An  Interference  with 
interstate  commerce  must  be  shown  In  this  case. 

It  may  again  be  noted.  In  conclusion,  that  the  great 
majority  of  courts,  federal  and  state,  deciding  on  boy- 
cott cases,  have  expressed  their  disapproval  of  the  use 
of  the  secondary  and  compound  boycott,  although  a 
few  courts  have  proclaimed  the  practice  a  legitimate 
one.  In  those  states  where  the  courts  have  pronounced 
boycotts  illegal,  the  boycotter  may  be  subject  to  a  suit 
for  damages,  to  a  criminal  prosecution  or  to  an  in- 
junction order. 


CHAPTER   XV 

STATUS  OF  BOYCOTTS  ABROAD 
The  English  Law  of  Conspiracy 

The  recent  history  of  the  changes  In  the  English 
law  of  conspiracy  is  most  enlightening.  It  indicates 
how  confusing  a  guide  in  labor  disputes  is  the  common 
law  doctrine  of  conspiracy,  and  how  greatly  it  favors 
employer  over  employee. 

For  many  generations  the  law  of  conspiracy  had 
been  a  serious  impediment  to  the  workers  in  their 
battle  to  organize.  After  much  agitation  a  long  step 
forward  was  taken  in  1875,  when  a  law  of  criminal 
conspiracy  was  passed  in  which  it  was  declared  that 
"an  agreement  or  combination  of  two  or  more  per- 
sons to  do  or  procure  to  be  done  any  act  in  contem- 
plation or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute  between  em- 
ployers and  workmen  shall  not  be  indictable  as  a  con- 
spiracy if  such  act,  committed  by  one  person,  would 
not  be  punishable  as  a  crime." 

The  act  then  proceeded  to  state  definitely  what  deeds 
were  illegal,  all  others  not  named  in  a  labor  dispute 
being  permissible. 

The  section  (Section  7)  imposing  limits  to  trade 
union  activity  reads : 

Every  person  who,  with  a  view  to  compel  any  other 
person  to  abstain  from  doing  or  to  do  any  act  which 
such  other  person  has  a  legal  right  to  do  or  abstain 
from  doing,  wrongfully  and  without  legal  authority, 

241 


242  BOYCOTTS 

( 1 )  Uses  violence  to  or  intimidates  such  other  per- 
son or  his  wife  or  children,  or  Injures  his  property;  or 

(2)  Persistently  follows  such  other  person  about 
from  place  to  place;  or 

(3)  Hides  any  tools,  clothes  or  other  property 
owned  or  used  by  such  other  person,  or. deprives  him 
or  hinders  him  in  the  use  thereof;  or 

(4)  Watches  or  besets  the  house  or  other  place 
where  such  other  person  resides,  or  works,  or  carries 
on  business,  or  happens  to  be,  or  the  approach  to  such 
house  or  place;  or  • 

(5)  Follows  such  other  person  with  two  or  more 
other  persons  In  a  disorderly  manner  in  or  through  any 
street  or  road, 

shall  be  liable  to  the  same  punishment  provided  by 
the  other  sections. 

As  a  result  of  this  legislation  trade  unionists  were 
free  to  act  within  wide  limits  without  being  subject  to 
criminal  action.  However,  the  act  did  not  relieve 
unionists  from  civil  liability.  A  number  of  cases  deal- 
ing with  such  liability  in  civil  cases  were  decided  in 
the  nineties. 

Of  those  involving  a  trade  boycott,  the  earliest  was 
the  Mogul  case  (1891).^  Here  a  group  of  ship- 
owners, in  an  endeavor  to  monopolize  the  carrying 
trade  between  Hankow  and  the  European  ports,  offered 
a  rebate  of  5%  to  all  shippers  who  would  ship  only 
through  them,  and  threatened  to  dismiss  shipping 
agents  who  had  anything  to  do  with  competing  ship- 
owners. In  some  Instances  this  threat  was  carried 
out.  Plaintiffs,  competing  shipowners,  as  a  result, 
were  seriously  injured.  An  action  was  brought  against 
the  boycotters,  but  was  dismissed  by  the  House  of 
Lords.  The  court,  maintaining  that  no  legal  right 
had  been  Interfered  with,  concluded : 

"If  no  legal  right  has  been  interfered  with,  and  no 
legal  Injury  Inflicted,  it  is  vain  to  say  that  a  thing  might 
'23  Q.  B.  O.  614,  1892. 


STATUS  OF  BOYCOTTS  ABROAD   243 

have  been  done  by  an  individual,  but  cannot  be  done 
by  a  combination  of  persons." 

A  few  years  after,  in  1898,  another  example  of  a 
legalized  trade  boycott  rose  into  prominence  in  con- 
nection with  the  Scottish  Cooperative  Wholesale  So- 
ciety.^ In  this  case  the  trading  society  induced  sales- 
men not  to  supply  the  wholesale  company,  threatening 
to  withdraw  the  Society's  custom  if  they  had  any  rela- 
tions with  the  stores.  The  court  held  that  the  object, 
that  of  preventing  the  plaintiffs  from  purchasing  from 
a  rival  trading  society,  was  legal,  and  that  legal  means 
were  used. 

Soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  in 
1902,  an  employer's  blacklist  was  pronounced  legal. ^ 
Here,  a  secretary  of  a  local  trade  union  who  ceased 
working  for  one  member  of  a  master  builders'  asso- 
ciation and  obtained  employment  with  another  member, 
was  discharged  through  the  efforts  of  the  federation. 
The  court  held  that  there  was  no  evidence  of  any  act 
done  with  the  intention  of  injuring  the  worker.  The 
King's  Bench  affirmed  the  decision. 

While  these  decisions,  favorable  to  capital,  were 
being  handed  down,  others  of  a  far  different  charac- 
ter, involving  laborers,  were  being  enunciated.  In 
1893,  for  instance,  in  the  now  famous  case  of  Temper- 
ton  V.  Russell,^  a  boycott  by  trade  unionists  was  pro- 
nounced illegal.  Here  certain  workmen  advised  three 
trade  union  societies  to  refuse  to  work  for  a  certain 
builder  named  Brentano,  because  he  bought  supplies 
from  the  plaintiff.  Hearing  of  this  order  and  fearing 
a  strike,  Brentano  withdrew  his  future  custom.  The 
unionists  were  held  liable  for  damages.    This  is  prob- 

*  Scottish  Cooperative  Wholesale  Society  v.  Glasgow  Flesher's 
Trade  Defence  Ass'n  and  others. 

^  Bulcock  V.  St.  Anne's  Master  Builders'  Federation  and  others, 
19  Times  L.  R.,  27. 

'i  Q.  B.,  715. 


244  BOYCOTTS 

ably  the  first  case  on  record  in  England  of  the  suc- 
cessful outcome  of  a  civil  suit  for  a  conspiracy  to 
injure. 

In  Allen  v.  Flood,  however,  the  courts  adopted  a 
more  liberal  attitude  toward  combinations  of  work- 
men. Certain  trade  unionists  in  this  case  objected  to 
the  employment  of  Messrs.  Flood  &  Taylor  on  the 
wood  work  of  a  vessel,  on  the  ground  that  they  had 
previously  been  employed  on  the  iron  work  of  a  ship, 
and  that  such  dual  employment  was  contrary  to  trade 
union  rules.  Allen,  a  delegate  of  the  unions,  was  sent 
for  by  the  objectors,  and  urged  the  firm  to  discharge 
the  two  men.  The  firm  granted  the  request,  where- 
upon Allen  was  sued.  The  jury  brought  in  a  verdict 
of  guilty.  The  Court  of  Appeals  affirmed  the  verdict, 
but  the  House  of  Lords  reversed  it,  and  decided  that 
Allen  had  violated  no  legal  right  of  the  shipwrights, 
and  that  it  was  immaterial  whether  or  not  the  motives 
were  malicious. 

This  remarkable  decision,  however,  was  soon  fol- 
lowed by  another  in  the  case  of  Quinn  v.  Leathem,^ 
which  greatly  modified,  if  it  did  not  actually  reverse, 
the  shipwright  case.  This  case  originated  in  Belfast, 
Ireland,  where  the  Journeymen  Butchers'  Association 
of  that  city,  in  an  endeavor  to  unionize  the  meat  shops 
of  the  land,  called  a  master  butcher  in  the  north  of 
Ireland  to  their  meeting  to  have  him  explain  why  he 
employed  two  non-unionists.  The  butcher  offered  to 
pay  a  fine  and  have  the  men  admitted  to  the  trade 
union,  but  the  union  refused  so  to  admit  until  a  twelve 
months'  period  had  expired.  The  butcher  declined  to 
discharge  the  men  and  a  boycott  followed.  Some  of 
the  judges,  in  deciding  against  the  defendants,  took 
the  ground  that  motive  was  material  in  combinations, 
though,  according  to  Allen  v.  Flood,  this  was  not  the 
case  when  individuals   only  were   concerned.     They 

*  Appeal  Cases  for  1901,  p.  495. 


STATUS  OF  BOYCOTTS  ABROAD  245 

also  maintained  that  a  right  of  the  plaintiffs  had  been 
Infringed.  The  two  decisions  Introduced  a  legal  situa- 
tion full  of  contradiction.  Numerous  other  decisions 
on  boycotts  adverse  to  the  workers  were  also  re- 
ported.^ 

The  policy  which  had  been  pursued  In  civil  cases, 
therefore,  of  leaving  the  Interpretation  of  the  law  of 
conspiracy  solely  to  the  judiciary  led  to  endless  con- 
fusion and  to  a  discrimination  against  the  laborer.  Re- 
garding this  confusion,  Sir  Godfrey  Lushlngton  of  the 
Royal  Commission  declared: 

*'The  Indefiniteness  of  the  law  of  conspiracy  to  in- 
jure prevents  it  from  being  a  practical  guide  of  conduct 
to  workmen  as  to  what  they  may  do  In  times  of  strike 
and  what  they  must  avoid.  The  mere  fact  that  two 
make  a  conspiracy  is  enough  In  the  case  of  unwritten 
law  to  produce  confusion,  where  unspecified  acts,  lawful 
for  individuals,  are  to  be  made  unlawful  when  done  in 
combination.  But  the  law  itself  is  unintelligible  to 
workmen.  The  defendants  in  Quinn  v.  Leathem,  after 
judgment  had  been  given  against  them,  must  presum- 
ably have  been  at  a  loss  to  understand  which  in  par- 
ticular of  the  acts  done  by  them  It  was  that,  though  not 
unlawful  for  Individuals,  was  condemned  as  unlawful 
to  be  done  In  combination,  or  In  what  respect  their 
strike  differed  from  an  ordinary  strike  against  Individ- 
ual non-unionists.  They  could  only  know  that,  review- 
ing their  conduct  as  a  whole,  the  House  of  Lords  had 
pronounced  their  combination  to  be  an  oppressive  com- 
bination, a  conspiracy  to  injure. 

"The  perplexity  as  to  the  scope  of  the  law  Is  not 
confined  to  workmen.  /  believe  that  it  is  no  exaggera- 
tion to  say  that  a  lawyer  is  unable  to  advise  a  trade 

"■  Carr  v.  National  Amalgamated  Society  of  House  and  Ship  Paint- 
ers and  Decorators,  tried  at  Manchester  Assizes,  July  21  and  22, 
1903  (account  in  Labour  Gazette,  August,  1903,  p.  215)  ;  Trollope 
and  Brothers  v.  The  London  Building  Trades  Federation  and  others, 
1895  {72  Law  Times  New  Series,  p.  342)  ;  Huttley  v.  Simmons, 
1898;  Boots  V.  Grundy,  1900  (82  Law  Times,  769). 


246  BOYCOTTS 

union  with  any  confidence  on  elementary  points  con- 
nected with  a  strike  and  with  public  order /'^ 

Mr.  R.  B.  Haldaneadds: 

"For  myself,  I  should  be  very  sorry  to  be  called  on 
to  tell  a  trade  union  secretary  how  he  could  conduct  a 
strike  lawfully.  The  only  safe  answer  I  could  give 
would  be  that,  having  regard  to  the  divergent  opinions 
of  the  judges,  I  did  not  know.*'^ 

The  discrimination  against  the  trade  ui!ionists  which 
appears  from  a  perusal  of  the  various  decisions  is  well 
brought  out  by  Mr.  Haldane. 

"By  the  constitution  of  a  trade  union  a  number  of 
workmen  agree  to  follow  the  decisions  of  the  managing 
committee,  just  as  the  combination  of  steamship  com- 
panies did,  and  their  purpose,  just  as  was  the  case  with 
the  steamship  companies,  is  the  furtherance  of  their 
own  interests.  To  this  end  they  delegated  the  power 
of  guiding  their  actions  to  the  committee  and  the  sec- 
retary, but  while  the  shipping  companies  may  say  to 
the  port  agents  and  small  steafuship  companies:  'You 
shall  not  earn  your  livelihood,  for  we  will  not  work 
with  those  who  deal  with  you,  a  trade  union  secretary 
apparently  may  not  say  so.  It  seems  that  the  distinc- 
tion between  these  two  lay  not  in  legal  principle,  but  in 
the  different  complexion  which  the  facts  wear  for  the 
persons  regarding  themJ'^ 

Mr.  Askwith  also  declared  that  the  various  deci- 
sions, commencing  with  the  Mogul  case,  seemed  to  have 
given  rise  on  many  sides  to  the  view  that  the  law  is 
"much  more  to  the  advantage  of  the  employers  than 
it  can  possibly  be  to  that  of  the  workmen,  and  that, 
in  fact,  it  puts  the  workman  in  a  position  of  having 

1  Quoted  from  Mass.  Report  of  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1907, 
p.  149,  and  Report  of  Royal  Com.,  etc.,  p.  89. 

2  R.  B.  Haldane,  Contemporary  Review,  v.  83,  pp.  368,  369. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  368.     Italics  are  the  author's. 


STATUS  OF  BOYCOTTS  ABROAD   247 

continually  to  be  coming  to  the  law  courts  for  the  pur- 
pose of  finding  out  what  justification,  according  to  the 
legal  dicta,  will  enable  him  to  escape  from  civil  liabil- 
ity as  a  conspiracy,  and  from  damages  in  paying  for 
that  civil  llablhty."  Sir  Godfrey  Lushlngton  of  the 
Royal  Commission  also  expressed  the  same  belief.^ 

It  was  with  these  criticisms  of  the  law  in  mind  that, 
in  September,  1902,  the  Trade  Union  Congress  de- 
manded "that  legislation  be  enacted  which  shall  clearly 
define  the  law  of  conspiracy  so  that  what  is  legal  for 
one  man  to  do  shall  not  be  either  a  criminal  offense  or 
an  act  wrongful  If  done  by  many  In  combination."  In 
a  letter  submitted  to  the  members  of  Parliament  by 
the  Trade  Union  Congress  Parliamentary  Committee, 
on  May  5,  1903,  the  unionists  declared: 

"Acts  when  done  by  one  person  are  legal,  when  done 
by  a  combination  with  others  are  actionable  at  common 
law  as  a  conspiracy.  .  .  .  We  respectfully  desire  on 
behalf  of  trade  unions  that  under  the  Conspiracy  Act 
the  same  rights  shall  be  extended  to  actions  done  by 
persons  in  combination  as  to  acts  done  by  single  oer- 
sons.  ^ 

Partly  as  a  result  of  this  agitation,  as  well  as  that 
arising  from  the  Taff  Vale  decision,  a  Commission  on 
Trades  Disputes  and  Combinations  was  appointed  by 
King  Edward  on  June  6,  1903,  composed  of  The  Right 
Honorable  Andrew  Graham  Murray,  Secretary  for 
Scotland,  Sir  WlUIam  Thomas  Lewis,  the  recognized 
English  authority  on  trade  unions.  Sir  Godfrey  Lush- 
lngton, Mr.  Arthur  Cohen,  and  Lord  Dunedin,  three 
well-known  jurists,  and  Mr.  Sidney  Webb.  On  Jan- 
uary 16,  1906,  it  made  its  report.  In  its  hearings  some 
fifty  representatives  of  employers  testified,  besides 
fifteen  miscellaneous  witnesses.     Because  of  a  resolu- 

1  Royal  Commission,  etc.,  p.  88. 

-  Report  of  minutes  of  evidence  taken  before  Royal  Commission, 
p.   13,  question  138. 


248  BOYCOTTS 

tion  of  the  General  Congress  of  Trade  Unions,  no 
trade  unionist  testified  before  this  body.  The  com- 
mittee did  not  have  a  single  trade  unionist  among  Its 
members,  most  of  the  appointees  being  lawyers.  In 
view  of  Its  membership  and  witnesses,  a  report  preju- 
diced on  labor's  side  would  not  have  been  expected. 

In  January,  1906,  the  commission  made  a  number 
of  recommendations  tending  toward  the  legalizing  of 
peaceful  boycotts.    They  were  among  others : 

(Section  2)  To  declare  strikes  from  %)hatever  mo- 
tive, or  for  whatever  purposes^  (Including  sympathetic 
or  secondary  strikes),  apart  from  crime  or  breach  of 
contract,  legal,  and  to  make  the  act  of  1875  to  extend 
to  sympathetic  or  secondary  strikes.  (Thus  strikes  in 
furtherance  of  a  boycott  would  be  legal.) 

(Section  4)  To  declare  that  an  individual  shall  not 
be  liable  for  doing  an  act  not  in  itself  an  actionable 
tort  only  on  the  ground  that  it  is  an  interference  with 
another  person's  trade,  business  or  employment. 

(Section  9)  To  enact  to  the  effect  that  an  agreement 
or  combination  by  two  or  more  persons  to  do  or  pro- 
cure to  be  done  any  act  in  contemplation  or  furtherance 
of  a  trade  dispute  shall  not  be  the  ground  of  a  civil  ac- 
tion, unless  the  agreement  or  combination  is  indictable 
as  a  conspiracy,  notwithstanding  the  terms  of  the  Con- 
spiracy and  Protection  of  Property  Act,  1875. 

These  recommendations,  coming,  as  they  did,  dur- 
ing the  general  elections,  were  sent  in  too  late  to  have 
great  weight  in  shaping  the  legislation  of  that  year. 
The  presence  of  the  large  number  of  Laborites  in 
Parliament  as  a  result  of  these  elections,  however,  not 
only  assured  the  passage  of  legislation  as  liberal  from 
the  standpoint  of  labor  as  had  been  recommended  by 
the  Commission,  but,  in  some  instances,  as  In  the  liabil- 
ity of  the  unions  to  be  sued,  of  a  much  more  advanced 
character. 

*  Italics  are  the  author's. 


STATUS  OF  BOYCOTTS  ABROAD   249 

The  Trades  Disputes  Act,  following  the  report  of 
the  commission,  became  a  law  December  21,  1906.  It 
contained  five  sections.  The  recommendation  of  the 
Commission  in  Section  9,  practically  declaring  the  le- 
gality of  a  boycott,  was  embodied  in  the  Trades  Dis- 
putes Act,  although  in  different  phrasing,  as  follows : 

"An  act  done  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement  or  com- 
bination by  two  or  more  persons  shall,  if  done  in  con- 
templation or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute,  not  be 
actionable  unless  the  act,  if  done  without  any  such 
agreement  or  combination,  would  be  actionable/^ 

This  section  was  to  follow  the  first  paragraph  of 
Section  3  of  the  Conspiracy  law  of  1875.  The  law 
also  provided  that 

*'An  act  done  by  a  person  m  contemplation  or  fur- 
therance of  a  trade  dispute  shall  not  be  actionable  on 
the  ground  only  that  It  induces  some  other  person  to 
break  a  contract  of  employment,  or  that  it  Is  an  Inter- 
ference with  the  trade,  business  or  employment  of  some 
other  person,  or  with  the  right  of  some  other  person  to 
dispose  of  his  capital  or  of  his  labor  as  he  wills."  In 
this.  Parliament  went  further  than  the  committee's 
recommendation. 

It  also  declared  that  no  suit  for  damages  against  a 
trade  union  or  Its  members,  for  an  Injury  com.mitted  in 
behalf  of  the  union,  shall  be  entertained  by  a  court. 
The  position  of  the  commission  was  much  more  con- 
servative on  this  last  point.  Subsection  4  of  Section  7 
of  the  1875  Conspiracy  Act  was  virtually  repealed  by 
the  enactment  of  the  following: 

"It  shall  be  lawful  for  one  or  more  persons,  acting 
on  their  own  behalf  or  on  behalf  of  a  trade  union  or  of 
an  individual  employer  or  firm  in  contemplation  or 
furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute,  to  attend  at  or  near  a 
house  or  place  where  the  person  resides  or  works  or 


250  BOYCOTTS 

carries  on  business  or  happens  to  be,  if  they  so  attend 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  peacefully  obtaining  or  com- 
municating information,  or  of  peacefully  persuading 
any  person  to  work  or  abstain  from  working." 

While  there  is  no  mention  here  of  the  boycott,  it  is 
clearly  seen  that  a  trade  union  shall  not  be  held  civilly 
liable  for  any  boycott  prosecuted  by  them,  and  that  a 
boycott,  so  long  as  it  does  not  involve  the  doing  of 
certain  specially  proscribed  acts,  is  actionable  neither 
civilly  nor  criminally.  The  question  of  the  lack  of  rea- 
sonable cause,  of  maliciousness,  of  the  remoteness  of 
the  benefit,  of  the  coercive  power  contained  in  threats 
to  injure  the  business  of  another,  does  not  enter  into 
the  problem.^ 

The  boycott,  as  it  exists  in  America,  however,  has 
never  made  itself  felt  in  England  to  any  great  extent. 
*'The  usual  British  boycott,"  wrote  John  Burnett  in 
1891,2  "aims  only  at  preventing  the  employer  from 
obtaining  other  men,  or  from  getting  his  work  done  at 
other  places,  but  we  are  almost  entirely  strangers  to 
that  form  of  trade  interdict  which  aims  at  compelling 
the  surrender  or  ruin  of  an  obstinate  employer  by 
stopping  the  sale  of  his  goods." 

Mr.  Burnett  speaks  of  the  attempts  of  the  London 
Bakers  and  the  London  Boot  and  Shoe  Makers  to 
boycott  in  the  American  style  a  few  years  prior,  which 
boycotts  were  attended  with  no  great  success. 

Mr.  Gompers  claims  that  the  Trades  Disputes  Act 
has  not  had  the  effect  of  legalizing  the  boycott,^  and 
cites  an  instance  where  it  was  considered  actionable  for 
an  agent  of  a  musicians'  union  to  issue  handbills  ask- 
ing the  public  to  patronize  a  theater  competing  against 
one,   the  employees  of  which  were  on  strike.      The 

1  For  a  thorough  discussion  of  the  English  situation,  see  Seager, 
The  Legal  Status  of  Trade  Unions  in  the  United  Kingdom,  etc., 
Pol.  Sc.  Qtrly.,  V.  22,  No.  4. 

^John  Burnett,  Economic  Journal,  v.    i,  pp.  172  et  seq. 

'Gompers,  Labor  in  England  and  America,  p.  31. 


STATUS  OF  BOYCOTTS  ABROAD   251 

court,  however,  took  the  ground  that  the  strike  was 
over  when  the  circularizing  occurred,  inasmuch  as  the 
manager  had  by  that  time  procured  other  musicians  to 
take  the  places  of  the  strikers. 

Germany 

While  the  law  of  1869  in  Germany  imposed  penal- 
ties upon  those  who  "coerced  others  by  violence,  threat 
and  interdiction,  or  otherwise,"^  a  form  of  boycotting, 
involving  the  persuading  of  the  general  public  to  cease 
their  dealings  with  a  third  party,  and  the  threatening 
of  fellow  members  of  a  labor  union,  has  been  declared 
by  the  German  Imperial  Court  not  actionable  in  dam- 
ages.^ The  decision  on  this  question  was  rendered 
July  12,  1906.  As  the  court  is  divided  into  a  number 
of  senates,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  decision  would 
meet  with  the  approval  of  each  group  of  judges. 

A  dispute  arose  in  March,  1904,  between  master 
bakers  and  their  employees,  in  which  the  employees 
demanded  that  they  be  paid  additional  cash  instead  of 
food  and  lodging,  and  asked  for  a  minimum  wage.  A 
strike  followed,  and  the  leaders,  through  the  Social 
Democratic  papers  and  pamphlets,  gave  an  exposition 
of  the  workers'  claims,  and  asked  that  those  residing 
near  the  seat  of  trouble  patronize  those  bakers  who 
yielded,  publishing  a  hst  of  fair  dealers.  The  labor 
federation  resolved  to  boycott  the  recalcitrant  employ- 
ers, and  issued  a  manifesto  to  organized  labor,  urging 
them  to  take  part  in  the  boycott,  and  threatening  to 
have  the  members  called  to  account  should  they  refuse. 

The  master  bakers  thereupon  brought  an  action  to 
restrain  the  future  publication  of  the  boycott,  and  to 
secure  damages  based  on  Trade  Code  No.  153,  which 
forbids  the  use  of  coercion  in  joining  a  combination, 

^Law  of  June  21,  1869,  Art.  153. 

^  Freund,    Journal    of   Political    Economy,    v.    14,    pp.    573,    574 ; 
^Deutsche  Juristenzeitung,  September  15,  1906. 


252  BOYCOTTS 

and  Civil  Code  No.  823,  6.     The  court  refused  the 
request  of  the  plaintiffs.     It  said  in  part: 

**It  is  true  that  the  imperial  court  has  held  repeatedly 
that  a  going  concern  is  property,  the  injury  for  which 
may  give  rise  to  an  action  for  damages.  But  not  every 
action  of  another  that  causes  damages  is  an  unlawful 
injury,  especially  not  an  action  which  is  merely  an  exer- 
cise of  general  and  of  economic  liberty.  Among  lawful 
acts  must  be  counted  the  formation  of  labor  unions  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  better  conditions*  of  work  and 
of  payment,  and  measures  taken  by  such  unions  and 
their  friends  and  adherents  for  this  purpose  are  not 
illegal  simply  because  they  injure  existing  concerns. 
The  only  question  is  whether  the  measure  taken  in  the 
present  case  goes  beyond  what  is  lawful  in  the  wage 
and  labor  struggle.  The  boycott  of  tradespeople  by 
labor  unions  is  not  unlawful  per  se.  Boycotting  and 
strikes  alike  are  weapons,  the  former  seeking  to  cur- 
tail the  sale  of  goods,  the  latter  seeking  to  hinder  their 
production.  One  is  neither  more  nor  less  permissible 
than  the  other.  Both  find  their  counterpart  in  the 
weapons  used  by  employers — the  strike  in  the  lockout, 
the  boycott  in  the  blacklist. 

"The  law  prohibits  the  use  of  menace  and  coercion 
for  the  purpose  of  procuring  and  retaining  adherents 
in  the  wage  conflict,  and  it  also  protects  the  adversary 
against  undue  measures  taken  to  force  him  to  grant 
new  terms  of  employment. 

"But  by  the  threat  that  organized  workmen  not  join- 
ing in  the  boycott  would  be  called  to  account,  it  must 
be  assumed  that  it  was  only  meant  that  they  would  be 
expelled  from  their  union  in  accordance  with  its  by- 
laws. Such  a  threat  is  not  unlawful,  since  the  right  to 
hold  out  certain  coercive  measures  rests  upon  a  special 
relation. 

"If  the  measure  threatened  is  not  punishable,  the 
threat  is  not  punishable.  Neither  in  their  purposes  nor 
in  the  measures  they  used  did  the  defendants  violate  the 
general  rules  of  fair  and  proper  conduct.     It  does  not 


STATUS  OF  BOYCOTTS  ABROAD   253 

matter  whether  their  demands  were  justifiable  or  not. 
It  is  sufficient  that  they  regarded  them  as  justifiable. 
In  their  publicity  they  avoided  personal  recriminations, 
and  in  the  main  confined  themselves  to  a  request  for 
aid  by  giving  preference  in  dealing  to  concerns  acced- 
ing to  the  workmen's  demands. 

''Nor  does  it  offend  against  the  law  of  fair  conduct 
to  apply  for  aid  to  others  not  immediately  concerned  in 
the  struggle.  In  similar  manner  there  have  been  re- 
quests to  avoid  department  stores  in  order  to  favor 
small  concerns  or  to  give  preference  to  Christian  trades- 
men. Through  such  means,  the  removal  of  real  or 
alleged  evils  is  frequently  sought.  The  publication  of 
circulars  of  this  kind  cannot  be  regarded  as  violating 
the  rules  of  fair  dealing."^ 

The  nation-wide  boycotts  against  beer  have  been 
among  the  most  conspicuous  in  Germany  during  the 
past  few  years. 

Other  Countries 

According  to  Grover  G.  Huebner,^  the  laws  on  the 
statute  books  of  some  of  the  more  important  countries 
of  Europe  In  1906  were  as  follows: 

Austria:  The  law  of  April  7,  1870,  Art.  3,  penal- 
izes violence,  threats,  and  the  forcing  of  others  to 
enter  combinations,  or  to  retire  from  such  combina- 
tions.    There  are  no  special  laws  against  boycotts. 

Belgium:  The  law  of  May  31,  1866,  modified  the 
law  of  conspiracy,  but  the  law  of  May  30,  1892,  levies 
severe  penalties  against  intimidation,  mob  rule  and  the 
breaking  of  tools.  There  is  no  special  statute  against 
boycotts. 

France:  The  Penal  Code  of  France  suspends  the 
common  law  and  regulates  strikes  and  the  use  of  in- 
timidation, threats,  violence  and  similar  acts.     There 

1  Italics  are  the  author's. 

2  Huebner,  Boycotting,  pp.  9-10. 


254  BOYCOTTS 

is  no  statute  especially  applicable  to  boycotts.  If  a 
strike  Is  begun  maliciously  to  Injure  the  employer 
rather  than  to  benefit  the  strikers,  it  calls  for  damages. 
Cass,  9  June,  1896,  Mounier  C.  Renaud.  Interfer- 
ence with  employment  by  threats  is  prohibited.  Cass. 
Ap.,  Caen.,  Oct.  21,  1897. 

Holland:  The  law  of  April  11,  1903,  reinforces 
the  penalties  against  violence  and  threats  which  were 
already  provided  for  in  the  common  law.  There  Is 
no  specific  law  against  boycotts.  • 

Italy:  Penal  Code,  Art.  155,  etc.  Similar  to  the 
French  law. 

We  see,  therefore,  that  in  none  of  these  countries 
is  there  any  specific  law  against  boycotting,  although  in 
all  of  them  there  are  statutes  against  intimidation 
which  would  probably  be  interpreted  as  applying  to 
certain  forms  of  boycotts. 

It  Is  seen  that  in  England  there  has  been  a  growing 
liberality  in  the  law  of  conspiracy,  and  that,  by  the 
statute  of  1906,  the  boycott  Is  virtually  legalized,  as 
is  the  boycott  in  Germany.  In  other  countries  of  Eu- 
rope the  status  of  the  law  Is  less  definite,  although  their 
statutes  against  intimidation  would  probably  be  used 
in  many  instances  against  the  employment  of  this  de- 
vice. 


CHAPTER   XVI 

EFFORTS  TO  LEGALIZE  BOYCOTTS  AND  TENDENCIES 
TOWARD  LEGALIZATION 

Many  have  been  the  endeavors  to  legalize  boycotts 
in  the  United  States  by  the  Introduction  of  antl-con- 
splracy  and  antl-Injunctlon  bills,  by  amendments  to  the 
Sherman  Anti-Trust  law  and  by  means  of  exempting 
clauses  in  the  Sundry  Civil  bills.  Contempt  bills  have 
also  been  aimed  at  the  preventing  of  judicial  abuse  In 
boycott  cases. 

One  of  the  first  efforts  to  pass  pro-boycott  legisla- 
tion was  made  in  1902  and  1903  through  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Hoar-Grosvenor  Anti-Injunction  and 
Anti-Conspiracy  bills.  The  Pearre  Anti-Injunction  bill 
of  1908,  the  Wilson  Anti-Injunction  bill  and  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Sherman  law  in  1911,  the  Bartlett 
Anti-Injunction  bill  of  19 12,  the  Bartlett  and  Stan- 
ley Contempt  bills  of  19 13,  the  Clayton  Anti-Injunc- 
tion and  Contempt  bills  of  19 12  and  19 13,  and 
the  Sundry  Civil  bills  of  the  last  few  years  are  among 
the  most  Important  of  those  thus  far  introduced. 

The  Wilson  bills,  Introduced  by  Secretary  of  Labor 
W.  B.  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania,  had  the  solid  support 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  repre- 
sented, perhaps  as  few  other  bills  did,  the  attitude  of 
that  organization. 

The  anti-injunction  and  anti-conspiracy  bills  intro- 
duced by  Mr.  Wilson,  then  chairman  of  the  Labor 
Committee  of  the  House,  June   2,    19 11,  prohibited 

255 


256  BOYCOTTS 

the  courts  of  the  United  States  from  Issuing  Injunc- 
tions unless  necessary  to  prevent  an  Irreparable  in- 
jury to  property,  and  provided  that  the  so-called  rights 
of  patronage  and  of  employing  others  should  not  be 
construed  Into  property  rights.  It  also  stipulated, 
following  the  legislation  of  England,  that  no  act  be 
considered  a  conspiracy  or  a  civil  or  criminal  offense, 
unless  unlawful  if  done  by  a  single  individual.  By  its 
provisions  secondary  and  certain  forms  of  compound 
boycotts  would  be  legalized.  • 

The  amendment  to  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  law,  in- 
troduced the  same  day  by  Mr.  Wilson,  provided  that 
this  law  should  not  be  made  to  apply  to  any  organiza- 
tions not  for  profit  or  without  capital  stock. 

The  Wilson  Anti-Injunction  Bill,  H.  R.,  11,032, 
62nd  Congress,  was  as  follows: 

"A  bill  to  regulate  the  issuance  of  restraining  or- 
ders and  procedure  thereon,  and  to  limit  the  meaning 
of  'conspiracy'  in  certain  cases. 

"Be  it  enacted  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  of  America  In  Congress  assembled, 

''That  no  restraining  order  or  injunction  shall  be 
granted  by  any  court  of  the  United  States,  or  a  judge 
or  the  judges  thereof,  in  any  case  between  an  employer 
and  employee,  or  between  employers  and  employees,  or 
between  employees,  or  between  persons  employed  and 
persons  seeking  employment,  or  involving  or  growing 
out  of  a  dispute  concerning  terms  or  conditions  of  em- 
ployment, unless  necessary  to  prevent  Irreparable  In- 
jury to  property  or  to  a  property  right  of  the  party 
making  the  application,  for  which  injury  there  is  no 
adequate  remedy  at  law,  and  such  property  and  prop- 
erty right  must  be  particularly  described  in  the  appli- 
cation, which  must  be  In  writing  and  sworn  to  by  the 
applicant  or  by  his,  her,  or  its  agent  or  attorney.  And 
for  the  purposes  of  this  act  no  right  to  continue  the 
relation  of  employer  and  employee,  or  to  assume  or 
create  such  relation  with  any  particular  person  or  per- 


EFFORTS  TO  LEGALIZE  BOYCOTTS  257 

sons,  or  at  all,  or  patronage  or  good  will  in  business, 
or  buying  or  selling  commodities,  of  any  particular  kind 
or  at  any  particular  place,  or  at  all,  shall  be  construed, 
held,  considered,  or  treated  as  property  or  as  constitut- 
ing a  property  right. 

"Sec.  2.  That  in  cases  arising  in  the  courts  of  the 
United  States  or  coming  before  said  courts,  or  before 
any  judge  or  judges  thereof,  no  agreement  between  two 
or  more  persons  concerning  the  terms  or  conditions  of 
employment,  or  the  assumption  or  creation  or  termina- 
tion of  relation  between  employer  and  employee,  or 
concerning  any  act  or  thing  to  be  done  or  not  to  be 
done  with  reference  to  or  involving  or  growing  out  of 
a  labor  dispute,  shall  constitute  a  conspiracy  or  other 
civil  or  criminal  offense,  or  be  punished  or  prosecuted, 
or  damages  recovered  upon  as  such,  unless  the  act  or 
thing  agreed  to  be  done  or  not  to  be  done  would  be 
unlawful  if  done  by  a  single  individual;  nor  shall  the 
entering  into  or  the  carrying  out  of  any  such  agree- 
ment  be  restrained  or  enjoined  ^  unless  such  act  or  thing 
agreed  to  be  done  would  be  subject  to  be  restrained  or 
enjoined  under  the  provisions,  limitation,  and  defini- 
tions contained  in  the  first  section  of  this  Act. 

"Sec.  3.  That  all  Acts  and  parts  of  Acts  in  conflict 
with  the  provisions  of  this  Act  are  hereby  repealed." 

The  amendment  to  the  Sherman  Act  proposed  by 
Mr.  Wilson,  H.  R.  11033,  62d  Congress,  read: 

"A  bill  to  more  clearly  define  the  Act  of  July  2, 
1890,  entitled  'An  Act  to  protect  trade  and  commerce 
against  any  unlawful  restraints  and  monopolies.' 

"Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress 
assembled.  That  nothing  in  the  act  of  July  2,  i8go, 
entitled,  *An  Act  to  protect  trade  and  commerce 
against  any  unlawful  restraints  and  monopolies,^  is  in- 
tended, nor  shall  any  provision  thereof  hereafter  be  en- 
forced, so  as  to  apply  to  organizations  or  associatigns 
not  for  profit  and  without  capital  stock,  nor  to  the 
*  Italics  are  the  author's* 


258  BOYCOTTS 

members  of  such  organizations  or  associations  as  such, 
except  where  such  organization  or  association  not  for 
profit  and  without  capital  stock,  or  the  members  of 
such  organizations  or  associations,  shall  become  direc- 
tors or  managers  of  corporations  which  are  organized 
for  profit  and  which  have  capital  stock.^ 

"Sec.  2.  That  nothing  in  said  Act  of  July  2,  1 890,  is 
intended,  nor  shall  any  provision  thereof  hereafter  be 
enforced,  so  as  to  apply  to  any  arrangements,  agree- 
ments, or  combinations  among  persons  engaged  in  agri- 
culture or  horticulture  made  with  a  view  of  enhancing 
the  price  of  their  own  agricultural  or  horticultural 
products  when  sold  or  offered  for  sale  by  themselves. 

"Sec.  3-  That  all  Acts  and  parts  of  Acts  In  conflict 
with  the  provisions  of  this  Act  are  hereby  repealed." 

The  last  vigorous  efforts  to  obtain  the  passage  of 
the  anti-injunction  and  contempt  bills  were  those  made 
in  19 1 2  by  Congressman  Clayton  and  his  supporters. 
The  Clayton  Anti-Injunction  Bill  (H.  R.,  23,635), 
which  prevented  the  use  of  the  injunction  against  sec- 
ondary boycotts  and  which  had  the  approval  of  organ- 
ized labor,  was  passed  by  the  House  on  May  14,  191 2, 
by  an  overwhelming  vote  of  244  ayes  to  31  nays,  and 
was  referred  by  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  Sen- 
ate to  a  subcommittee  of  five.  Senator  Root,  chairman, 
and  there  died,  despite  the  protests  of  the  A.  F.  of  L. 
and  others. 

The  Clayton  Contempt  bill  (H.  R.,  22,591),  pro- 
viding for  trial  by  jury  for  contempts  occurring  out- 
side the  court,  passed  the  house  on  July  11,  19 12,  by 
a  vote  of  233  ayes  to  18  nays,  but  died  In  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Judiciary,  without  Its  having  been  re- 
ferred to  the  subcommittee  for  a  hearing. 

In  19 1 2  also  the  Bartlett  Anti-Trust  bill  (H.  R., 
23,189),  which  was  favorably  reported  by  the  House 
Committee   on  Labor,  April   22,    19 12,   died  on  the 

^  Italics  are  the  author's. 


EFFORTS  TO  LEGALIZE  BOYCOTTS  259 

House  calendar.  The  Bacon  bill,  S.,  6,266,  an  iden- 
tical bill  in  the  Senate,  was  never  reported  out  of 
committee. 

In  order  to  prevent  the  use  of  any  appropriations 
made  by  Congress  in  prosecuting  labor  unions,  amend- 
ments from  time  to  time  have  been  made  to  sundry 
civil  bills.  In  1909  Representative  Hughes  made  such 
an  amendment,  but  President  Taft  vetoed  it.  On 
February  20,  19 13,  Congressman  Hammill  offered  the 
following  amendment  to  that  portion  of  the  bill  ap- 
propriating $300,000  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Anti- 
Trust  laws : 

"Provided,  however,  that  no  part  of  this  money  shall 
be  spent  in  the  prosecution  of  any  organization  or  indi- 
vidual for  entering  into  any  combination  or  agreement 
having  in  view  the  increasing  of  wages,  shortening  of 
hours  or  bettering  the  conditions  of  labor,  or  for  any 
act  done  in  furtherance  thereof,  not  in  itself  unlawful." 

Representative  Roddenbery  added  to  the  amend- 
ment an  exemption  to  farmers'  associations. 

"Provided,  further,  that  no  part  of  this  appropria- 
tion shall  be  expended  for  the  prosecution  of  producers 
of  farm  products  or  associations  of  farmers  who  co- 
operate or  organize  in  the  effort  to  obtain  and  main- 
tain a  fair  and  reasonable  price  for  their  products." 

The  amendments  were  passed  by  the  House  and  the 
Senate,  and  were  submitted,  together  with  the  many 
other  provisions,  to  President  Taft,  March  4.  Dis- 
approving these  exemptions.  President  Taft  returned 
the  bill  to  Congress.  The  House  of  Representatives 
thereupon  passed  the  bill  over  his  objections  by  a  vote 
of  264  ayes  to  48  nays.  The  hour  of  adjournment  ar- 
rived in  the  Senate  before  action  could  be  taken,  and 
the  measure  thus  died. 

The  same  bill  was  repassed  by  the  new  Congress 


26o  BOYCOTTS 

which  was  called  together  in  special  session  by  Presi- 
dent Wilson,  and  on  June  23rd  he  signed  it,  at  the 
same  time  expressing  his  disapproval  of  the  practice 
of  attaching  riders  to  appropriation  bills  and  his  re- 
gret that  he  could  not  veto  the  riders  without  vetoing 
the  whole  bill.  On  the  real  point  at  issue  he  expressed 
no  opinion. 

Several  other  bills  were  also  presented  in  the  Spring 
of  1 9 13,  but  with  little  likelihood  of  passage..  Repre- 
sentative Henry  introduced  an  amendme^it  to  the  Sher- 
man law,  exempting  labor  unions  and  agricultural  as- 
sociations;^ Representative  Clayton,  two  Anti-Injunc- 
tion bills,^  and  Representatives  Stanley,  Clayton  and 
Bartlett,  contempt  bills,^  all  of  which  were  referred  to 
the  committee  on  the  Judiciary. 

In  affirming  that  there  should  be  no  law  limiting 
combinations  of  labor,  although  certain  forms  of  com- 
binations of  capital  are  prohibited,  trade  unionists 
argue  that  the  existence  of  such  a  law  places  labor  at 
a  great  disadvantage.  One  worker  is  regarded  as  a 
unit  of  labor.  A  combination  of  two  or  more  workers 
constitutes  a  combination.  Their  activities,  if  they 
are  found  guilty  of  boycotting,  may  be  declared  in 
restraint  of  trade,  under  the  provisions  of  the  present 
Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law.  A  unit  of  capital,  on  the 
other  hand,  may  be  a  million-dollar  corporation,  thou- 
sands of  times  as  powerful  as  a  unit  of  labor,  or  even 
as  most  combinations  thereof.  Yet  no  attempt  has 
been  made  to  reach  such  a  corporation  under  the  Sher- 
man Law  unless  it  has  seemed  likely  to  constitute  more 
or  less  of  a  monopoly. 

Unionists,  therefore,  state  that,  while  the  oft-re- 
peated argument  that  the  Sherman  law  treats  capital 
and  labor  combinations   ahke   seems   most  plausible, 

iR.  R.  2958,  63d  Cong.,  1st  Ses. 

^Ibid.,  4659,  5484,  63d  Cong.,  ist  Ses. 

'Ibid.',  5798,  571 1,  4660,  1871,  63d  Cong.,  ist  Ses. 


EFFORTS  TO  LEGALIZE  BOYCOTTS  261 

the  equal  enforcement  of  the  law  is,  In  reality,  far  from 
equitable  In  Its  results. 

Other  reasons  put  forward  for  exempting  labor 
from  the  provisions  of  the  anti-trust  law  are  that 
unions  are  organized  not  for  profit,  but  for  the  mutual 
assistance  of  the  laborers,  and  that  labor  is  insep- 
arably connected  with  a  human  being,  while  capital 
is  inanimate. 

Mr.  Samuel  Gompers  thus  differentiates  the  two 
forms  of  combinations: 

"The  labor  union  Is  not  a  trust.  None  of  its  achieve- 
ments in  behalf  of  its  members — and  society  at  large — 
can  properly  be  confounded  with  the  pernicious  and 
selfish  activities  of  the  illegal  trust.  A  trust,  even  at 
its  best,  is  an  organization  of  a  few  to  monopolize  the 
production  and  control  the  distribution  of  a  material 
product  of  some  kind.  The  voluntary  association  of 
the  workers  for  mutual  benefit  and  assistance  is  essen- 
tially different.  Even  if  they  seek  to  control  the  dis- 
position of  their  labor  power.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  power  to  labor  is  not  a  material  commodity, 

^^There  cannot  be  a  trust  in  something  that  is  not 
produced.  The  human  power  to  produce  is  the  an- 
tithesis of  the  material  commodities  which  become  the 
subject  of  trust  control,  .  .  . 

"Our  unions  aim  to  improve  the  standard  of  life, 
to  uproot  ignorance,  and  foster  education;  to  Instil 
character,  manhood  and  independent  spirit  among  our 
people ;  to  bring  about  a  recognition  of  the  Interdepend- 
ence of  man  upon  his  fellowman.  We  aim  to  establish 
a  normal  workday,  to  take  the  children  from  the  family 
and  workshop  and  give  them  the  opportunity  of  the 
school,  the  home  and  the  playground.  In  a  word,  our 
unions  strive  to  lighten  toil,  educate  our  members,  make 
their  homes  more  cheerful,  and  in  every  way  con- 
tribute an  earnest  effort  toward  making  life  the 
better  worth  living.  To  achieve  these  praiseworthy 
ends,  we  believe  that  all  honorable  and  lawful  means 
are  both  justifiable  and  commendable  and  should  re- 


262  BOYCOTTS 

celve  the  sympathetic  support  of  every  right-thinking 
American."^ 

"What  is  labor?"  asked  Mr.  Gompers  again.^  "Is 
it  an  inanimate  thing?  .  .  .  Labor  is  the  effort  of  a 
human  breathing  man  and  woman.  You  can  take  capi- 
tal and  transport  it  to  the  other  end  of  the  world. 
You  cannot  do  that  with  labor.  You  cannot  differen- 
tiate the  labor  of  the  man  or  the  woman  with  the 
breathing,  respiring  body  and  heart  and  brain.  .  .  . 
It  is  an  abuse  of  the  very  essence  of  essential  principles 
to  place  in  the  same  category  labor  and  capital.  You 
can  make  regulations  for  capital  and  the  owner  of  capi- 
tal may  leave.  You  may  not  deprive  even  him  of  his 
own  personal  liberty,  though  you  make  all  the  regula- 
tions you  may  as  far  as  concerns  capital ;  but  you  cannot 
make  one  regulation  in  so  far  as  labor  is  concerned,  in 
the  ordinary  acceptance  of  that  term,  without  its  affect- 
ing the  laborer — his  heart,  his  body,  his  brain.*' 

Tendencies  Toward  Legalization 

If  we  take  a  broad  view  of  the  evolution  of  the  law 
of  conspiracy,  we  are  impelled  to  feel  that  that  evolu- 
tion will  continue  until  many  forms  of  the  boycott  are 
legalized.  All  strikes  were  at  one  time  declared  illegal. 
Now  many  states  hold  that  laborers  can  strike  for  any 
and  all  reasons.  One  by  one  the  arguments  which 
were  used  against  the  legality  of  strikes — practically 
the  same  as  those  now  employed  against  boycotts — 
have  been  discarded.  Strikes  were  declared  to  be  un- 
lawful conspiracies.  They  injured  the  property  of  an- 
other, they  coerced  others  against  their  will,  they  were 
malicious,  their  immediate  effect  was  harmful. 

The  arguments  no  longer  obtain.  Even  strikes  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  closed  shop,  which  in  many 
instances  involve  the  boycotting  of  non-union  men,  are 

'^American  Federationist,  November,   1907.     Italics  are   the  au- 
thor's. 
2  Ibid.,  May,  1908. 


EFFORTS    TO    LEGALIZE    BOYCOTTS  263 

frequently  held  legal.  That  the  same  evolution  is 
likely  to  occur  in  the  case  of  the  boycott  seems  logical. 
England  has  legalized  boycotting  by  statute.  The 
German  courts  have  recently  taken  an  advanced  posi- 
tion. Statutes  in  Maryland  and  CaHfornia,  following 
the  English  law,  declare  that  it  is  not  indictable  for 
two  or  more  to  do  that  which  it  is  lawful  for  one  to 
do.  The  Montana,  California  and  New  York  courte 
have  decided  in  favor  of  the  legality  of  secondary 
boycotts,  while  the  former  two  states  approve  some 
forms  of  compound  boycotts.  State  and  national  legis- 
lators are  clamoring  for  their  legality.  Indications 
point  to  a  considerable  degree  of  success  within  the 
not  distant  future.  If  boycotts  are  legalized,  however, 
such  legalization  will  probably  come  largely  through 
legislation,  rather  than  through  the  judiciary. 


PART  III 

BOYCOTTS  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIAL  AND 
ECONOMIC  CONDITIONS 


CHAPTER    XVII 

SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  REASONS  AGAINST  THE 
BOYCOTT 

In  view  of  the  manner  in  which  boycotts  have  been 
used  and  abused  by  unionists  in  labor  struggles,  the 
question  arises  as  to  whether,  from  the  larger  social 
and  economic  viewpoint,  they  should  be  legalized,  or 
whether  more  stringent  efforts  should  be  made  toward 
their  suppression. 

Employers  have,  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases,  taken 
the  latter  view.  They  claim  that  boycotts,  at  least, 
the  secondary  and  compound  forms,  are  detrimental 
to  the  interests  of  the  general  public,  since  they  fre- 
quently lead  to  mob  violence  and  to  the  suppression  of 
liberty  of  action;  that  they  are  unjust  to  the  employ- 
ing class,  placing  it  at  a  disadvantage  in  its  struggles 
with  labor  and  rendering  it  a  victim  to  the  tyranny  and 
extortion  of  union  leaders;  and,  finally,  that  they  are 
injurious  to  the  workers  themselves.  Their  employ- 
ment alienates  the  sympathy  of  the  public  from  the 
unionists'  cause,  diminishes  the  employment  of  many 
of  their  members,  vitiates  the  unions  with  the  disin- 
tegrating influences  of  corruption,  diverts  attention 
from  saner  and  more  effective  methods  of  progress  and 
maliciously  interferes  with  the  rights  of  the  non-union 
worker. 

Many  employers  and  conservatives,  however,  con- 
fine their  disapproval  to  denunciatory  utterances.  Thus 

267 


268  BOYCOTTS 

the  Brooklyn  Daily  Eagle  a  short  time  ago^  charac- 
terized this  instrument  as  a  "dragon,  slimy  and  re- 
pulsive, which  had,  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury, been  a  vague  terror  to  independent  workers  and 
to  large  employers,  at  all  times,  materializing  now  and 
then  as  a  concrete  foe,  insidious,  treacherous,  often 
triumphant."  The  Grand  Jury  in  the  Theiss  Case^ 
described  the  particular  kind  of  boycott  before  them 
as  an  accursed  exotic,  a  *'hydra-headed  monster, 
dragging  its  loathsome  length  across  tlfe  continent, 
sucking  the  very  life  blood  from  our  trade  and  com- 
merce, equally  harmful  to  employees  and  employers." 
Another  paper  declared: 

'*As  frequently  applied  it  is  one  of  the  most  heartless 
and  brutal  manifestations  of  private  revenge  recorded 
in  history  and  is  calculated  to  call  forth  the  abhorrence 
and  just  reprehension  of  all  men  who  respect  law  and 
love  liberty."^ 

In  citing  his  reasons  for  the  prohibition  of  the  boy- 
cott from  the  social  viewpoint,  a  Virginia  judge  de- 
clared that  he  saw  in  the  boycott  the  beginnings  of 
anarchy.     He  said: 

"The  acts  alleged  and  proved  in  this  case  are  unlaw- 
ful and  incompatible  with  the  prosperity,  peace  and 
civilization  of  the  country,  and,  if  they  can  be  per- 
petrated with  impunity  by  a  combination  of  irresponsi- 
ble cabals  and  cliques,  there  will  be  an  end  of  govern- 
ment and  of  society  itself.''^ 

The  judge  described  the  acts  of  the  defendants  as 
"constituting  a  reign  of  terror,  which,  if  not  checked 
and  punished  in  the  beginning  by  the  law,  will  speedily 

1  May  i6,  1910. 

*  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor,  New  York,  1886,  p.  747. 
'American  Bar  Association,  1894,  p.  307,  quoting  Mr.  Charles  C. 

Allen. 

*  Crump  V.  Commonwealth,  Va.,  1887.     Italics  are  the  author's. 


REASONS  AGAINST  THE  BOYCOTT  269 

and  Inevitably  run  into  violence,  anarchy  and  mob 
tyranny."  Again  he  affirms  that  it  is  "oppressive  to 
the  individual,  injurious  to  the  prosperity  of  the  com- 
munity and  subversive  of  the  peace  and  good  order  of 
society." 

While  commending  the  direct  boycott,  Prof.  John 
B.  Clark  believes  that  the  Indirect  boycott  is  an  un- 
warranted interference  with  freedom:^ 

"To  refuse  to  buy  anything  whatsoever  from  a  mer- 
chant because  he  keeps  in  his  stock  a  prohibited  article, 
and  sells  it  to  a  different  set  of  customers.  Is  interfer- 
ing. In  an  unwarranted  way,  with  the  freedom  of  a 
merchant  and  of  the  other  customers." 

Many  cases  may  be  cited  where  the  boycott  has 
been  injurious  to  parties  having  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  the  original  dispute.  Retailers,  under  con- 
tract relations  with  the  boycotted  firm,  have  been  os- 
tracised financially  because  they  failed  to  break  their 
contracts;  citizens  have  been  boycotted  because  they 
purchased  goods  from  stores  whose  owners  rode  In 
trolleys  on  which  there  was  a  strike;  barbers,  because 
they  shaved  strike-breakers.  Competitors  have  fre- 
quently duped  a  trade  union  into  boycotting  a  concern, 
and  employers  have  been  boycotted  by  one  labor  or- 
ganization because  they  acceded  to  the  demands  of  a 
rival.  The  number  of  such  instances  may  be  multi- 
plied. Such  activities,  claim  the  opponents  of  the  boy- 
cott, should  not  be  tolerated. 

The  use  of  the  boycott.  It  is  argued,  is  unjust  to  the 
employing  class,  as  it  permits  laborers  to  become  vir- 
tually the  dictators  of  Industry.  The  presiding  judge. 
In  an  early  New  Jersey  boycott  case,  thus  views  the 
danger : 

"Freedom  of  business  action  is  at  the  foundation  of 
all  Industrial  and  commercial  enterprises.  ...    If  this 

^  Clark,  Essentials  of  Ecotiomic  Theory,  p.  507. 


270  BOYCOTTS 

privilege  is  denied  them  (the  employers),  if  the  man- 
agement of  the  business  is  to  be  taken  from  the  owner 
and  assumed  by,  it  may  be,  irresponsible  strangers, 
then  we  will  have  come  to  a  time  when  capital  will  seek 
other  than  industrial  channels,  when  enterprise  and  de- 
velopment will  be  crippled,  when  interstate  railroads, 
canals  and  means  of  transportation  will  become  de- 
pendent on  the  paternalism  of  the  national  government, 
and  the  factory  and  workshop,  subject  to  the  uncertain 
chances  of  the  cooperative  system."^ 


The  blacklist,  which  is  to  the  employer  what  the 
boycott  is  to  the  laborer — the  former  being  the  con- 
certed refusal  to  patronize  labor,  the  latter,  the  con- 
certed refusal  to  patronize  the  goods  of  the  employer 
— has  been  pronounced  illegal  by  the  courts.  Why 
should  not  the  boycott,  it  is  asked,  also  be  considered 
illegal?  To  legalize  a  weapon  of  labor  and  to  pro- 
hibit the  use  of  the  corresponding  weapon  of  capital 
gives  the  former  an  undue  advantage. 

Many  cases  are  recorded  in  which  great  injustice 
has  been  done  the  individual  employers.  Often,  ac- 
cording to  the  claims  of  these  employers,  they  have 
been  boycotted  for  trivial  causes.  The  alleged  op- 
pressive conditions  have  been  greatly  exaggerated  in 
the  labor  press,  and,  as  a  result  of  these  misrepresen- 
tations, the  firms  have  lost  thousands  of  dollars.  They 
have  often  been  compelled  to  pay  extortion  money  to 
escape  a  threatened  boycott. 

It  is  also  claimed  that  the  use  of  the  boycott  is  in- 
jurious to  the  unions  themselves.  Referring  to  the 
"compound"  boycott,  in  which  third  persons  are 
coerced  into  refusing  business  relations  with  the  boy- 
cotted firm,  the  Industrial  Commission  makes  this  con- 
tention '^ 


1  Barr  v.  Essex,  N.  J.,  1891. 
'Ind.  Com.  Rept,  v.  19,  p.  885. 


REASONS  AGAINST  THE  BOYCOTT  271 

^'As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  cause  of  workers  is  un- 
doubtedly injured  much  more  than  it  is  benefited  by 
attempts  to  compel  others  against  their  will  to  help  in 
their  disputes.  A  large  proportion  of  the  community 
objects  to  such  coercive  measures,  and  will  be  more 
apt  to  take  sides  against  the  workers  where  they  are 
resorted  to." 

The  Commission,  however,  considers  the  boycott, 
where  no  coercion  is  used,  legitimate. 

In  many  instances  the  more  indirect  boycotts  are 
likely  to  throw  out  of  employment  large  numbers  of 
the  working  class,  including  union  men,  thus  proving  a 
boomerang  against  labor.  This  occurs  when  a  union 
employer  is  boycotted  because  he  directly  or  indirectly 
deals  with  another  who  has  incurred  the  animosity  of 
organized  labor. 

It  is  claimed,  furthermore,  that  the  use  of  this 
weapon  is  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  labor,  because 
it  concentrates  the  attention  of  labor  on  an  inferior 
weapon,  and  keeps  labor  from  endeavoring  to  solve  its 
various  problems  by  the  employment  of  the  union  label, 
the  label  shop,  political  action,  the  trade  agreement, 
the  industrial  form  of  organization,  etc.  After  years 
of  experience  in  boycotting,  Mr.  A.  J.  Portenar,  fol- 
lowing his  description  of  the  extensive  movement 
against  the  Butterick  firm,  concludes  :^ 

'T  was  very  active  in  this  matter,  and  from  the  ex- 
perience then  gained  I  have  reached  defi-nite  conclu- 
sions. We  expended  a  large  amount  of  money;  how 
large  I  do  not  know.  So  far  as  money  could  compass 
our  object,  we  were  not  niggardly.  But  money  is  but 
one  of  the  essential  factors  a  union  needs  in  the  con- 
duct of  an  affair  of  this  kind.  Far  more  than  mo7iey, 
it  must  have  the  enthusiastic  devotion  of  its  members 
to  the  continuous ,  laborious  and  unpleasant  work  need- 

^  Portenar,  Problems  of  Organized  Labor,  p.  92.     Italics  are  the 
author's. 


272  BOYCOTTS 

ful  to  make  the  expenditure  of  money  effective.  This, 
with  a  few  exceptions,  I  found  it  impossible  to  get. 
And  even  these  few,  in  the  course  of  time,  finding 
themselves  unsupported  by  the  great  majority,  began 
to  get  lukewarm  and  at  last  ceased  to  labor  in  a  field 
so  vast  and  so  deserted. 

"There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  if  the 
bulk  of  the  membership  had  been  as  devoted  as 
our  self-sacrificing  band  of  a  few  hundreds,  who 
for  nearly  four  years  gave  time  and  energy  to  the 
work,  the  results  would  have  been  4:remendously 
greater.  But,  this  apathy  being  so  widespread  among 
our  membership,  it  can  easily  be  imagined  what  sort 
of  inertia  we  encountered  when  appealing  to  the  mem- 
bership of  other  unions  and  to  the  general  public.  It 
was  not  that  we  had  no  success.  The  Butterick  Com- 
pany is  the  best  witness  to  the  contrary.  But  it  is 
scarcely  believable  how  unremittingly  we  had  to  labor 
to  save  what  we  had  done  one  day  from  becoming  use- 
less the  next.  And  this  fact  eventually  led  to  the 
abandonment  of  the  boycott  and  the  slow  recovery  by 
the  Butterick  Company  of  the  ground  lost. 

"Therefore  my  opinion  is  that  no  boycott  can  com- 
pletely and  permanently  accomplish  the  result  sought, 
and  very  few  will  do  nearly  as  much  in  that  direction 
as  the  one  here  spoken  of,  which  finally  became  a  fail- 
ure." Mr.  Portenar,  as  formerly  stated,  proposed  a 
"great  cooperative  society  controlled  and  directed  by 
international  unions." 

Mr.  Herman  Lee,  secretary  of  the  Anti-Boycott  As- 
sociation, claimed  that  the  employment  of  the  boycott 
in  the  building  trades  often  leads  to  corruption  and 
extortion.  Mr.  Lee  cites  an  alleged  instance  in  which 
a  union  foreman  compelled  a  builder  to  pay  him 
$2,000 — the  cost  entailed  in  his  tearing  down  non- 
union frames  to  doors  and  windows  and  putting  union 
frames  in  their  stead.  He  stated  that  the  foreman 
disbursed  $15  a  day  to  himself  and  to  each  of  the  ten 


REASONS  AGAINST  THE  BOYCOTT  273 

men  under  him  for  this  particular  job.  In  some  in- 
stances, Mr.  Lee  asserted,  the  union  foremen  or  walk- 
ing delegates  threaten  to  boycott  a  firm  on  account  of 
some  alleged  infringement  of  union  rules,  in  order  to 
exact  a  considerable  bribe  from  the  employer. 

The  policy  of  the  building  trades,  be  it  said,  is  to 
enforce  a  boycott  against  any  mill  supplying  non-union 
material,  by  threatening  to  strike,  and  actually  striking 
against  any  builder  who  purchases  such  non-union 
goods.  Such  corruption,  it  is  claimed,  has  an  injurious 
reflex  action  against  labor  organizations. 

It  is  also  charged  that  the  labor  boycott  which  is 
directed  against  the  employment  of  non-union  men 
works  great  injustice  to  unorganized  labor.  Many 
non-unionists  find  it  impossible  to  secure  membership 
in  certain  trade  unions,  it  is  alleged,  either  on  account 
of  the  high  initiation  fees,  the  arbitrary  limitation  of 
membership,  or  some  personal  discrimination.  If  the 
union  begins  a  boycott  against  these  men,  and  threat- 
ens to  boycott  those  who  employ  them  or  who  deal 
with  the  employers,  the  worker  often  finds  that  he  is 
deprived  of  his  means  of  livelihood,  not  only  in  one 
city,  but  in  various  parts  of  the  country.  No  less  is 
this  a  hardship  to  those  who,  for  one  reason  or  an- 
other, do  not  apply  for  membership  in  the  union. 

The  opponents  of  the  boycott  therefore  urge  that 
in  justice  to  the  general  public,  to  the  employers,  and 
to  the  workers  themselves,  its  use  in  labor  disputes  be 
absolutely  prohibited  by  law. 


CHAPTER    XVIII 

SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING 
THE  BOYCOTT 

While,  on  the  one  hand,  we  hear  thos^  who  bitterly 
denounce  the  boycott  in  its  various  forms,  on  the  other, 
we  discover  just  as  enthusiastic  supporters  who  favor 
the  legalization  of  every  form  of  boycott,  primary, 
secondary  and  compound,  except,  perhaps,  that  form  in 
which  threats  of  actual  violence  are  involved.  The 
argument  for  the  legalization  of  the  boycott  from  a 
social  and  economic  standpoint  is  based  primarily  upon 
the  hypotheses  that  the  well-being  of  society  is  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  condition  of  the  working 
class;  that  that  condition  at  the  present  time  is  greatly 
in  need  of  improvement;  that  such  improvement  de- 
pends to  a  very  large  extent  upon  the  strength  of 
labor's  organizations;  that  that  strength  is  contingent 
upon  the  weapons  of  defense  and  offense  permitted  to 
it;  that  the  employing  class  is  now  in  possession  of 
certain  powerful  weapons  denied  to  the  laborer,  and 
that  justice  demands  that  organized  labor  be  placed 
in  possession  of  such  weapons  as  tend  to  place  it  on  a 
more  equal  footing  with  the  employing  class,  in  its 
struggles  for  a  larger  part  of  the  social  product. 

While  acknowledging  the  possibilities  of  occasional 
abuse,  the  advocate  of  the  boycott  believes  that  the 
tendency  to  abuse  it  becomes  less  marked  and  that  the 
good  accomplished  far  outweighs  the  evil.  He  also 
points  to  the  danger  of  the  secret  use  of  the  boycott 
and  to  the  injurious  results  which  follow  when  a  group 

274 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  275 

in  society  continues  a  practice  in  defiance  of  law.  He 
declares  that  there  is  also  the  possibility  that  the 
worker  will  use  more  iniquitous  weapons,  should  he  be 
totally  deprived  of  the  use  of  the  boycott.  Finally  he 
argues  for  the  legalization  of  the  boycott  on  the  ground 
that  its  prohibition  would  deprive  the  workers  of  a 
fundamental  human  right. 


Present  Condition  of  Labor 

The  statement  that  the  welfare  of  society  is  indis- 
solubly  connected  with  the  welfare  of  the  great  mass 
of  intellectual  and  manual  producers  is  perhaps  axio- 
matic in  this  day  and  generation.  It  is  also  freely 
admitted  that  the  condition  of  the  working  class  is  in 
need  of  improvement,  and  that  wages  are  far  too  small. 

"It  is  reasonable  to  believe,"  declares  Dr.  Frank 
Streightoff,  in  his  excellent  treatise  on  'The  Distribu- 
tion of  Incomes  in  the  United  States'  (pp.  139-140), 
"that  in  1904  something  over  sixty  per  cent,  of  males 
at  least  sixteen  years  of  age,  employed  in  manufac- 
turing, mining,  trade,  transportation,  and  a  few  other 
occupations  associated  with  industrial  life,  were  earn- 
ing less  than  $626  per  annum  (about  $12  a  week)  ; 
about  thirty  per  cent,  were  receiving  some  $626,  but 
under  $1,044;  and  perhaps  10%  enjoyed  incomes  of 
at  least  $1,000.  If  to  these  the  agriculturists  are 
added,  sixty-five  per  cent,  fall  in  the  low-earnings 
group,  twenty-seven  in  the  medium,  and  eight  in  the 
higher." 

Similar  conclusions  are  reached  by  others.  Prof. 
T.  S.  Adams  calculated  that,  in  1900,  49.68  per  cent, 
of  the  male  adult  workers  in  the  large  factory  indus- 
tries received  less  than  $10  a  week;  34.12  per  cent.,  be- 
tween $10  and  $15;  and  only  16.2  per  cent,  $15  or 
more;  that  the  median  wage  was  about  $10.05  a  week, 


276  BOYCOTTS 

and  that  the  average  yearly  earnings  were  something 
like  $480.^  The  wages  of  the  women  and  children,  of 
course,  are  smaller.  In  some  occupations,  such  as  the 
textile  Industry,  the  Income  Is  exceedingly  low. 

In  the  latter  Industry  a  recent  report  of  the  Com- 
missioner of  Labor  declares  that  of  the  male  opera- 
tives, 16  years  and  over,  in  the  New  England  mills 
investigated : 

"Thirteen  and  four-tenths  per  cent,  earned  less  than 
$4  in  the  representative  week,  for  whlcl!  wages  were 
taken,  while  32%  earned  under  $6,  54.3%  under  $8, 
and  71.8%  under  $10,  leaving  28.2%  earning  $10  or 
more.  Of  the  female  operatives  In  this  age  group  In 
the  New  England  mills  investigated,  13.2%  earned 
under  $4,  38%  under  $6.67,  4%  under  $8,  and  86.4% 
under  $10,  leaving  13.6%  earning  $10  or  more  in  the 
representative  week. 

*'0f  the  male  operatives  16  years  of  age  and  over 
in  the  Southern  mills  investigated,  26.6%  earned  less 
than  $4.48,  4%  under  $6.75,  2%  under  $8,  while 
90.1%  earned  under  $10,  and  of  the  female  opera- 
tives, 32.6%  earned  under  $4,  68%  under  $6.92,  5% 
under  $8,  while  only  1.9%  earned  as  much  as  $10." 
In  all  except  the  last  group,  the  largest  single  group 
of  workers  earned  between  $6  and  $8  a  week. 

The  table  thus  shows  that  nearly  one-third  of  the 
men,  and  nearly  two-fifths  of  the  women,  in  the  New 
England  mills,  and  nearly  one-half  of  the  men  and 
over  two-thirds  of  the  women  in  the  Southern  mills, 
earn  less  than  $6  a  week;  while  over  one-half  of  the 
men  and  over  two-thirds  of  the  women  in  New  Eng- 
land— nearly  three-fourths  of  the  men  and  over  nine- 
tenths  of  the  women  of  the  South — earn  less  than  $8 
a  week.  In  this  industry.^ 

1  Adams  and  Sumner,  Labor  Problems,  p.  156. 
^Report  on  Condition  of  Women  and  Child  Wage-earners  in  the 
United  States,  v.  i,  pp.  310,  311. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  277 

A  conservative  New  York^  newspaper  recently  fig- 
ured that,  in  New  York,  a  family,  consisting  usually 
of  a  woman  and  4  children,  earns  from  $4.71  to  $5.71 
a  week,  making  doll's  clothing;  from  $2  to  $3,  pick- 
ing nuts  from  shells;  and  from  $3.30  to  $4.25,  in  the 
preparation  of  artificial  flowers. 

In  the  face  of  the  actual  earnings  of  so  large  a  part 
of  the  working  class,  we  hear  from  Dr.  Devine,  Prof. 
Ryan,  John  Mitchell  and  others  that  $600  a  year  for  a 
family  is  a  minimum  normal  standard  necessary  to 
provide  for  the  family  the  necessities  of  life.  Prof. 
Albion  W.  Small  places  this  amount  at  $1,000.2  Mrs. 
Louise  Bolard  More  concludes  that  in  New  York 
City  the  physical  wants  of  a  normal  family  cannot 
be  properly  supplied  by  an  income  of  less  than  $800 
a  year. 

Of  conditions  In  New  York,  the  Committee  on  Con- 
gestion of  Population,  in  their  report  of  April  3,  19 10, 
contended  that,  while  a  few  wage-earners  were  making 
enough  to  support  their  families  in  decency,  $800  a 
year  being  taken  as  a  minimum,  the  average  wage  of 
j^g,22i  wage-earners  in  Manhattan  and  the  Bronx,  in 
igo^  was  $543-17;  of  lo^^gg^  in  Brooklyn,  $5ig.42. 
The  wage-earners  in  the  former  boroughs  thus  secured 
$257  less,  and  in  the  latter,  $280  less  than  the  neces- 
sary minimum-^ 

If  we  were  to  investigate  the  hours  of  employment, 
the  sanitation  of  the  factories,  the  condition  of  the 
safety  appliances,  the  unsteadiness  of  employment,  and 
the  many  other  conditions  surrounding  the  lives  of  the 
working  class,  we  would  find  that  they  were  equally 
unsatisfactory.  That  labor  must  be  well  organized  if 
It  is  to  improve  Its  conditions  adequately,  in  view  of  the 
big  business  combinations  against  which  it  is  pitted,  is 

^Brooklyn  Daily  Eagle,  March  24,  1912. 
^  Charities  and  Commons,  v.  17,  p.  300. 
^New  York  Times,  April  4,  1910. 


278  BOYCOTTS 

now  conceded  by  all  economists.     On  this  question  the 
Industrial  Commission  concludes: 

"It  is  quite  well  recognized  that  the  growth  of  great 
aggregations  of  capital  under  the  control  of  single 
groups  of  men,  which  is  so  prominent  a  feature  of  the 
economic  development  of  recent  years,  necessitates  a 
corresponding  aggregation  of  workingmen  into  unions, 
which  may  be  able  also  to  act  as  units.  It  is  readily 
perceived  that  a  single  workman,  face  to  face  with  one 
of  our  great  modern  combinations,  such  |s  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation,  is  in  a  position  of  great  weak- 


It  Is  also  recognized  that  such  organizations  have 
materially  assisted  the  workers  in  obtaining  better  con- 
ditions. Quoting  again  the  Industrial  Commission  as, 
perhaps,  the  most  authoritative  of  our  public  investiga- 
tions, we  learn  :^ 

"An  overwhelming  preponderance  of  testimony  be- 
fore the  Industrial  Commission  indicates  that  the  or- 
ganization of  labor  has  resulted  in  a  marked  improve- 
ment of  the  economic  conditions  of  the  workers." 

The  commission  then  gives  a  large  number  of  in- 
stances where  wages  have  been  raised  on  account  of 
organization.  In  referring  to  the  accomplishments  of 
labor  in  reducing  hours,  the  Commission  affirms:^ 

"In  the  absence  of  legislation,  the  only  effective 
means  of  securing  a  reduction  of  hours  is  through 
labor  organization.  This  Is,  of  course,  the  method 
by  which  the  most  significant  and  important  reductions 
in  recent  years,  in  the  United  States,  have  been  se- 
cured. .  .  .  The  general  effort  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  to 
secure  shorter  hours,  beginning  In  1886,  Is  believed  to 
have  reduced  the  day's  labor  of  the  working  people  of 
the  United  States  by  fully  one  hour." 

*  Final  Report  of  the  Industrial  Commission,  v.  19,  p.  800. 
'Ibid.,  p.  802. 
'Ibid.,  p.  776. 


REASOxNS  FOR  LEGALIZING  279 

A  glance  through  the  foregoing  pages  will  readily 
indicate  that  the  boycott  in  many  trades,  if  used  wisely, 
can  be  and  frequently  has  been  of  much  value  in 
strengthening  the  unions  in  their  contests.  The  fre- 
quent use  of  this  weapon,  the  belief  in  its  potency  which 
Is  held  by  labor  leaders  and  official  investigators,  as 
well  as  the  bitter  opposition  which  its  use  has  aroused 
among  the  employing  class,  are  indicative  of  its  efficacy. 

We  will  now  glance  at  some  of  the  advantages  pos- 
sessed, as  well  as  some  of  the  weapons  used,  by  the  em- 
ployers in  their  contest  against  their  employees. 


The  Wealth  and  Position  of  Employing  Class 

In  the  Industrial  struggle  the  workers  are  essentially 
at  a  disadvantage.  They  have  no  share  in  the  owner- 
ship of  the  machines,  but  must  have  access  to  them  if 
they  wish  to  earn  their  daily  bread.  There  are  gen- 
erally more  men  than  there  are  jobs  available,  and  this 
often  leads  to  a  fierce  struggle.  Labor,  the  most  per- 
ishable of  all  commodities,  is  the  only  commodity  which 
the  worker  has  to  offer.  The  worker  is  usually  but  a 
few  weeks  from  destitution.  He  lacks  the  education 
in  the  art  of  bargaining  which  the  employer  has  ac- 
quired, and  he  is  far  less  acquainted  with  the  condition 
of  his  employer's  exchequer  than  the  employer  Is  with 
his  employee's  financial  status. 

When  the  worker  strikes  he  finds  that  these  handi- 
caps weigh  heavily.  A  cessation  of  work  may  seriously 
cut  into  the  profits  of  the  owner  of  the  industry,  but  it 
rarely  means  actual  physical  privation  for  himself  and 
his  family.  The  opposite  Is  true  of  the  worker.  In 
every  strike  he  must  face  a  bitter  struggle,  and  often  he 
and  his  family  find  themselves  facing  starvation  and 
eviction.  He  is  financially  much  weaker  than  his 
employer. 


28o  BOYCOTTS 

In  summing  up  some  of  the  advantages  possessed  by 
capital,  the  Industrial  Commission  declares : 

"The  control  of  the  means  of  production  gives 
power  to  dictate  to  the  workingmen  upon  what  terms 
he  (the  employer)  shall  make  use  of  them.  .  .  .  The 
tendency  toward  unified  control  of  capital  and  business 
has  only  intensified,  without  essentially  changing,  the 
disadvantage  of  the  wage  worker  in  his  dealings  with 
employers.  .  .  .  The  competition  for  work  is  nor- 
mally far  sharper  than  the  competitioji  for  work- 
men. .  .  .  The  commodity  of  labor  is  in  the  highest 
degree  perishable.  That  which  is  not  sold  to-day  dis- 
appears absolutely.  .  .  .  Considered  merely  as  a  bar- 
gainer, as  an  actual  participant  in  the  operations  of  the 
market,  the  workingman  is  almost  always  under  grave 
disadvantages  as  compared  with  the  employer.  .  .  . 
But  aside  from  all  questions  of  mental  dexterity  and 
acquired  skill,  the  workingman  is  at  a  disadvantage  in 
that  his  economic  weakness  is  well  known  to  his  em- 
ployer. .  .  .  The  workingman  cannot  conceal  his  need 
of  work,  and  cannot  know  how  much  his  employer 
needs  men."^ 

One  needs  only  to  watch  the  unequal  contest  which 
even  such  a  strong  organization  as  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  has  been  waging  during  the  last  few 
years,  merely  to  organize  the  workers  in  the  steel  in- 
dustry, to  realize  the  tremendous  disadvantages  under 
which  labor  is  struggling. 

Not  only  does  capital  possess  these  advantages,  but 
It  has  at  its  disposal  certain  weapons  which  are  used 
with  terrific  force  against  labor.  Among  these  weap- 
ons may  be  mentioned  the  employers'  organizations, 
blacklists,  the  "spy"  system,  the  private  detective  agen- 
cies, and  the  strike-breaking  bureaus.  The  employer, 
furthermore,  often  finds  the  molders  of  public  opinion 
— press,  lecture  platform  and  pulpit — pliable  instru- 

^  Final  Report  of  the  Industrial  Commission,  v.  19,  pp.  800,  801. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  281 

ments  in  his  hands,  as  well  as  many  of  the  agencies  of 
government,  such  as  the  police,  constabulary,  militia 
and  courts.  Let  us  first  turn  our  attention  to  the  power 
of  the  employers'  organizations. 

Employers*  Organizations 

To  one  who  has  not  closely  followed  the  growing 
organizations  among  the  employers  during  the  past 
few  years,  the  formidable  character  of  the  various 
associations  now  in  existence,  and  their  political  and 
strike-breaking  activities,  will  be  truly  astonishing. 

Of  first  importance  is  the  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers,  with  splendidly  equipped  headquarters 
In  New  York  City  and  St.  Louis.  This  organization  is 
said  to  have  a  membership  of  225  manufacturers'  or- 
ganizations, embracing  4,000  individual  members  who 
employ  more  than  5,000,000  persons,  and  represent  an 
approximate  capital  of  $10,000,000,000.  Five  years 
ago  the  association  reported  a  salaried  staff  of  over 
fifty  persons. 

Since  the  convention  of  April,  1903,  held  at  New 
Orleans,  when,  under  David  M.  Parry's  leadership,  the 
association  proclaimed  its  "unalterable  antagonism  to 
the  closed  shop,"  the  labor  problem  has  been  one  of 
the  leading  issues  before  it.^  In  1905  it  commenced  its 
opposition  to  the  eight-hour  bill,  and  "to  any  and  all 
anti-injunction  bills  of  whatever  kind." 

At  the  1907  convention  a  campaign  was  inaugurated 
for  the  raising  of  $500,000  annually  for  the  next  three 
years,  to  be  spent  for  "educational  purposes."  "There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  main  part  of  the  associa- 
tion's education  program  was  to  destroy  the  closed 
shop,  to  combat  the  sympathetic  strike,  to  check  the 
use  of  the  union  label,  and  to  prevent  the  publication 
of  the  unfair  list  by  trade  union  journals. **^ 

1  William  M.  Benney,  American  Industries,  May  15,  1908. 

2  Kennedy,  Journal  of  Political  Economy,  v.  16,  p.  102. 


282 


BOYCOTTS 


Among  the  purposes  for  which  this  fund  was  to  be 
used,  according  to  Atherton  Brownell  in  the  official 
organ  of  the  Association,  were:^  *'To  establish  a  fed- 
eration of  all  of  the  associations  of  citizens,  merchants 
and  employers  of  labor,  ...  to  maintain  a  great  coun- 
cil of  this  federation;  .  .  .  to  create  labor  bureaus, 
operate  a  labor  clearing  house,  to  aid  members  of  con- 
gress and  of  the  state  legislatures  against  the  attacks  of 
organized  laborJ*  Literature,  legal,  educational  and 
speakers'  bureaus  were  also  contemplated.  How  much 
of  this  proposed  fund  was  actually  raised  is  problem- 
atical. Mr.  James  A.  Emery  recently  testified  before 
a  Senate  committee  that  "none  of  them  'came  over.'  "^ 

The  following  year  the  members  of  the  National 
Association  of  Manufacturers,  either  directly  through 
this  association  or  through  the  National  Council  for 
Industrial  Defense,  organized  by  the  Association's  offi- 
cers for  the  purpose  of  influencing  legislation,  gave 
much  attention  to  the  blocking  of  labor  bills.  Pres- 
ident Van  Cleave  of  the  Association,  in  his  report  be- 
fore the  1908  convention,  describes  the  work  done  in 
this  line: 

"Ten  days  ago  in  Washington,  within  forty-eight 
hours  we  had  over  10,000  telegrams  and  letters  sent, 
a  demonstration  the  like  of  which  had  never  before 
been  made,  and  which  had  an  instantaneous  effect.  .  .  . 
The  result  was  that  it  seemed,  up  to  last  Saturday,  that 
it  would  be  impossible  for  any  influence  or  power  to 
break  down  that  effect  far  enough  to  enact  any  labor 
legislation."^ 

A  few  months  earlier  he  wrote,  in  commenting  upon 
the  defeat  of  a  number  of  proposed  labor  bills: 

^American  Industries,  September  15,   1907,  p.  5. 

^  Maintenance  of  a  Lobby  to  Influence  Legislation,  hearings  63d 
Cong.,  I  St  Ses.,  p.  4296  (August  28,  1913). 

^  Proceedings  of  Convention,  N.  A.  M.,  p.  107.  Italics  are  the 
author's. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  283 

"Much  of  the  credit  for  the  defeat  of  these  measures 
in  the  recent  Congress  (the  anti-injunction  law,  etc.) 
belongs  to  the  National  Association  of  Manufactur- 
ers. .  .  .  Members  of  the  Association's  committees, 
regular  or  special,  appear  before  committees  of  Con- 
gress in  support  of  or  in  opposition  to  measures  which 
are  to  come  up  for  action.  Sometimes  the  Association 
is  represented  in  this  work  by  well-known  lawyers  or 
publicists.  A  similar  course  of  procedure  is  followed 
by  the  Association  in  the  legislatures."^ 

In  1907  a  National  Council  for  Industrial  Defense 
was  established  to  harmonize  and  federate  the  various 
national,  state  and  local  organizations,  and  within  a 
year  more  than  130  of  such  employers'  organizations 
were  brought  together,  including  practically  all  of  the 
important  bodies  in  every  state.  At  present  writing,  it 
is  said  to  contain  no  less  than  250  organizations.^  Of 
this  body  the  late  President  Van  Cleave  said: 

"In  the  number  of  members,  in  the  capital  which 
they  control,  and  in  the  social,  industrial  and  political 
influence  which  they  exert,  this  is  by  far  the  largest 
and  most  powerful  league  of  conservative  and  public- 
spirited  citizens  ever  formed  in  any  country  of  the 
world."^ 

The  exact  status  of  this  organization  is  hard  to  de- 
termine. Some  claim  that,  inasmuch  as  the  charter  of 
the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  did  not  per- 
mit it  to  solicit  or  disburse  funds  for  political  purposes, 
the  National  Council  for  Industrial  Defense,  an  unin- 
corporated body,  was  organized  to  assist  in  this  work. 
Mr.  J.  Philip  Bird,  General  Manager  of  the  former 
Association  and  secretary-treasurer  of  the  latter,  stated 
that  the  officers  of  the  National  Council  for  Industrial 
Defense  were  selected  by  themselves  from  among  the 

'^American  Industries,  September  15,  1907. 

^  Maintenance  of  a  Lobby  to  Influence  Legislation,  op.  cit.,  p.  2736. 

^American  Industries,  May,  igo8,  p.  27. 


284  BOYCOTTS 

officers  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers, 
and  that  the  Council  paid  a  salary  of  $i,ooo  a  month 
to  Mr.  Emery,  the  chief  lobbyist.  He  also  admitted 
that  this  Council  never  held  a  general  meeting  during 
its  six  years  of  existence.^ 

Colonel  M.  Mulhall,  for  many  years  in  the  employ 
of  this  association  as  confidential  man,  alleged  recently 
in  statements  in  the  New  York  World,  and  before  the 
Senate  Investigating  Committee,  that  the  National 
Association  of  Manufacturers,  with  thtf  assistance  of 
the  National  Council  for  Industrial  Defense,  was  in- 
strumental in  defeating  many  Congressmen  who  fa- 
vored labor  legislation,  including  Representatives 
George  E.  Pearre,  author  of  the  Anti-Injunction  Bill, 
W.  B.  Wilson,  now  Secretary  of  Labor,  James  Hughes 
of  New  Jersey  ^  and  others.  The  Association  or  the 
Council,  directly  or  indirectly,  at  the  same  time  assisted 
in  financing  the  campaigns  of  Representatives  Charles 
E.  Littlefield  of  Maine,  James  E.  Watson  of  Indiana, 
James  T.  McDermott  of  Illinois,  a  "friend  of  labor," 
John  J.  Jenkins  of  Wisconsin,  sometime  chairman  of 
the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House,  Kittridge  Has- 
klns  of  Vermont,  Harry  M.  Bannon  of  Ohio,  and  Rep- 
resentatives Coudry,  Garner,  Cole  and  others  who  had 
proved  true  to  the  business  interests. 

In  the  Littlefield  campaign  of  1906  alone.  Colonel 
Mulhall  declared,  many  thousands  of  dollars  were 
spent  in  reaching  the  voters,  a  goodly  sum  being  de- 
voted to  the  purchase  of  whiskey.^  During  some  of 
the  campaigns,  especially  that  of  James  E.  Watson  of 
Indiana,  a  number  of  labor  leaders  were  paid  a  con- 

1  New  York  World,  July  17,  1913 ;  Maintenance  of  a  Lobby  to  In- 
fluence Legislation;  note:  op.  cit.,  pp.  2737,  2738,  2742. 

2  In  the  Hughes'  campaign  the  Colonel  averred  that  he  paid 
$1,800,  sent  by  Mr.  Gushing,  secretary  of  the  N.  A.  M.,  to  labor  men 
to  turn  over  to  the  Republican  headquarters  some  75,000  circulars 
sent  them  by  the  A.  F.  of  L.  in  behalf  of  Hughes,  a  Democrat; 
op.  at.,  pp.  2487,  2488. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  2582  et  seq. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  285 

siderable  sum  of  money  for  their  work  in  reaching 
labor.  In  some  instances  the  voters  were  bought  out- 
right. Thousands  of  confidential  communications  were 
sent  in  each  case  to  the  business  men  of  the  community, 
urging  that  the  Association's  friends  be  indorsed.  One 
of  the  letters  sent  by  Colonel  Mulhall  to  Congressman 
Haskins  of  Vermont,  June  16,  1908,  is  illustrative  of 
the  methods : 

"I  had  Mr.  Schwedtman  (assistant  to  the  presi- 
dent of  the  Association)  at  the  St.  Louis  office  send 
you  $300  yesterday  by  wire.  In  addition  to  this  we 
have  written  to  every  man  in  your  district,  and  I  am 
told  that  we  are  given  some  very  nice  letters  in  re- 


Colonel  Mulhall  urgently  requested  $3,000  for  Con- 
gressman Jenkins  in  his  campaign.  Individually  the 
Association's  members  raised  a  considerable  sum  of 
money. 

In  a  further  endeavor  to  win  favorable  legislation 
for  the  business  interests,  efforts  were  constantly  made 
to  control  the  Judiciary  and  Labor  Committees  of  the 
House  and  the  Senate.^  Mr.  Mulhall  also  claimed 
that  the  chief  page  of  Congress,  in  charge  of  seventy- 
five  pages,  was  employed  at  a  salary  of  $50  a  month 
to  assist  in  the  work.  While  certain  statements  of 
Colonel  Mulhall  were  challenged  before  the  Senate 
committee,  the  activities  described  above  were  in  the 
main  admitted. 

That  he  had  been  sent  at  the  expense  of  the  asso- 
ciation to  help  break  numerous  strikes,  and  that  he  had 
several  times  bribed  labor  leaders  to  spy  on  the  labor 
unions  and  to  bring  the  strikes  to  an  end,  were  other 
of  the  allegations  of  the  colonel.  In  describing  his  ac- 
tivities in  1905  and  1906,  in  crushing  the  strike  of  the 
printers  in  Philadelphia,  Mr.  Mulhall  declares: 

^New  York  World,  June  29,  1913. 


286  BOYCOTTS 

"My  principal  duties  were  to  keep  track  of  the  union 
printers  through  hired  agents  furnished  me  by  Gushing 
and  others.  Through  these  agents  we,  in  a  large  meas- 
ure, got  control  of  the  Central  Labor  Union  of  Phila- 
delphia and  kept  the  other  union  not  associated  with 
the  printers  from  contributing  to  the  support  of  the 
striker'' 

Mr.  Mulhall  declared  that  the  machinists'  strike  in 
Cleveland  in  June  of  1907  was  settled  "by  using  almost 
the  identical  tactics  as  far  as  money  matters  were  con- 
cerned."^  Again  in  the  strike  of  23,000  shoemakers 
of  St.  Louis,  he  declared  that  "all  kinds  of  bribery  were 
used,"  and  that  an  official  of  the  Manufacturers'  Asso- 
ciation placed  in  his  hands  "the  sum  of  $3,000  as  an 
inducement  to  be  paid  to  the  man  who  was  heading 
the  strike,  if  he  would  have  it  called  off  at  a  certain 
time."  It  required  somewhat  longer  than  the  strike 
leader  had  anticipated  to  settle  the  strike,  and  the 
money  was  withdrawn.  One  of  the  letters  submitted 
to  Mr.  Schwedtman  showed  that  $293.50  had  been 
promised  to  labor  men  for  their  services  in  returning 
to  the  shops  and  inducing  others  to  do  likewise.^ 

At  Danbury,  Connecticut,  where  he  had  been  sent  by 
the  association,  Mr.  Mulhall  claimed  that  he  had  been 
successful  in  getting  into  the  good  graces  of  one  of  the 
arbitrators,  a  Congregationalist  minister,  whom  he  had 
entertained  lavishly  in  New  York. 

That  wholesale  bribery  was  used  in  the  Portsmouth, 
Ohio,  shoe  workers'  strike  was  also  alleged.  Mr. 
Mulhall  pitted  the  A.  F.  of  L.  against  the  Knights  of 
Labor;  employed  some  of  the  leaders  of  the  Knights  of 
Labor  by  the  week,  and  gave  others  from  $25  to  $100 

"^New  York  World,  June  29,  1913.  Italics  are  the  author's.  See 
also  Maintenance  of  a  Lobby  to  Influence  Legislation,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
2522  et  seq. 

^  New  York  World,  June  29,  1913. 
Ibid.,  July  2,  1902. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  287 

to  settle.^  He  also  asserted  that  an  effort  was  made 
by  an  officer  of  the  Association  to  bribe  Samuel  Gom- 
pers  and  to  assure  him  a  life  position,  if  he  betrayed 
organized  labor.^  That  many  of  the  political  and 
strike-breaking  manipulations  of  Colonel  Mulhall  had 
the  approbation  of  at  least  some  of  the  officers  of  the 
organization  which  he  served  was  the  contention  of 
Louis  Siebold,  of  the  New  York  fVorld,  after  reading 
the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Mulhall  and  the  or- 
ganization.    Mr.  Siebold  declares: 

"For  each  successful  venture  in  the  line  of  political 
chicanery,  strike  breaking  and  subterranean  lobby  work 
described  by  the  reports  and  letters  identified  by  Col. 
Mulhall,  there  were  prompt  recognition  and  praise 
for  his  services  in  the  communications  from  high  offi- 
cials of  the  N.  A.  M.  that  followed."^ 

The  Association's  officers,  however,  claim  that  no 
such  authorization  was  given  for  many  of  the  acts  cited. 
They,  however,  admitted  the  authenticity  of  practically 
all  of  the  letters  submitted  by  Colonel  Mulhall,  on 
which  the  foregoing  allegations  were  chiefly  based.^ 

The  association  also  maintained  an  extensive  pub- 
licity bureau  known  as  the  Century  Syndicate. 

With  the  growing  strength  of  this  general  body  of 
employers,  the  country  has  also  witnessed  the  closer 
affiliation  of  the  manufacturers  in  allied  trades.  The 
National  Metal  Trades'  Association  is  one  of  the  most 
active.  This  organization  has  been  instrumental  in 
forming  a  number  of  employment  agencies  which  at 
times  have  had  the  virtual  effect  of  blacklisting  union 
mechanics.  They  are  also  well  equipped  to  assist  in 
the  breaking  of  strikes. 

The  bureaus  of  this  trade  are  established  in  a  dozen 

'  Ibid. 

'Ibid.,  June  29,  1913. 
^Ibid.,  July  17.  1913. 
*  Maintenance  of  a  Lobby  to  Influence  Legislation,  op  cit.,  p.  4300. 


288  BOYCOTTS 

large  cities.^  In  Chicago  the  local  agency  requires 
each  applicant  to  give  a  complete  record  of  himself, 
which  is  placed  on  a  card  index.  His  activities  are 
thoroughly  Investigated,  and,  If  he  Is  found  desirable 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  Association,  an  effort  is 
made  to  place  him.  "In  this  way,'*  runs  a  most  signifi- 
cant statement,  "employers  find  out  who  the  disturbers 
are,  and  they  are  kept  out  of  the  shops/'  Many  of  the 
firms  have  cards  In  their  places  of  business  bearing  the 
sign :  "Preference  is  given  to  people  hawng  cards  from 
the  Employers'  Association  Bureau." 

The  various  metal  trades'  bureaus  In  different  cities 
keep  In  close  touch  with  each  other,  and  have  founded 
a  Labor  Bureau's  Secretarial  League.  If  an  applicant 
gives  a  false  statement  the  error  can  frequently  be 
made  known  by  communication  with  the  bureau  of  an- 
other city.  In  describing  the  splendid  strike-breaking 
possibilities  of  this  bureau,  Mr.  Marcosson  declares: 

"If  a  strike  Is  threatened,  for  Instance,  In  the  New 
York  metal  trades,  Mr.  Hunter  (the  secretary)  can 
send  telegrams  to  every  labor  bureau  secretary,  asking 
him  to  rush  men  to  New  York.  In  twenty-four  hours 
hundreds  of  boiler  makers  would  be  on  their  way  from 
Kansas  City,  St.  Louis,  Chicago,  Cincinnati,  Philadel- 
phia and  a  dozen  other  places.  These  labor  bureaus 
all  have  competent  men  at  their  disposal." 

The  Anti-Boycott  Association,  which  has  been  fight- 
ing the  labor  unions  tooth  and  nail,  in  various  legal 
proceedings,  such  as  the  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co. 
case,  the  Danbury  Hatters'  case  and  the  building  trades 
cases,  is  also  worthy  of  mention. 

The  actual  part  which  the  trade  associations  play  in 
labor  struggles  Is  seen  more  clearly  when  we  analyze 
the  workings  of  the  local  bodies.     In  Chicago,  an  Em- 

*I.  F.  Marcosson,  in  World's  Work,  December,  1905.     Italics  are 
the  author's. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  289 

ployers'  Association  was  formed  in  1901,  consisting  of 
sub-associations  of  employers  in  the  laundry,  printing, 
building  and  other  trades.  Just  prior  to  a  demand 
of  the  workers  in  the  laundry  industry,  the  Laundry 
Owners*  Association,  one  of  the  sub-associations  of  the 
general  body,  was  informed  by  the  latter  body  of  the 
proposed  demands  of  the  employees  of  certain  firms. 
Forewarned,  the  companies  were  ready  with  a  blank 
refusal  when  the  demands  were  made,  and  the  em- 
ployees, the  day  following  the  submission  of  these 
demands,  found  that  they  were  not  only  locked  out 
from  their  own  concerns,  but  from  every  other  laundry 
belonging  to  the  association. 

During  the  ensuing  strike,  the  parent  body  sent 
checks  to  the  Laundry  Owners*  Association  when  the 
funds  ran  low,  and  saw  that  the  notes  of  the  poorer 
members  were  carried  by  the  banks. ^  This  body  also 
helped  the  firms  to  man  their  wagons,  to  secure  police 
guards,  to  have  their  freight  properly  handled,  and  to 
carry  through  legal  proceedings  against  the  unions.  It 
is  needless  to  say  the  employers  won  the  strike. 

The  Blacklist 

Another  weapon  used  by  the  employers  against  the 
workers  is  the  blacklist,  described  in  Chapter  II.  This 
weapon  has  frequently  been  called  the  employers'  boy- 
cott, being,  as  it  is,  a  concerted  effort  to  deprive  labor 
of  a  market  for  the  .only  commodity  the  worker  has  to 
sell,  his  labor  power.  Although  it  is  considered  ille- 
gal, it  can  be  used  effectively  with  such  great  secrecy 
that  unionists  find  it  well-nigh  impossible  to  obtain 
legal  proof  of  its  existence.  The  court  decisions  on 
the  subject,  furthermore,  in  a  number  of  instances, 
have  virtually  legalized  the  use  of  at  least  some  forms 
of  blacklisting. 

^  World's  Work,  January,  1904. 


290  BOYCOTTS 

**Spies"  in  Labor  Unions 

The  past  few  years  have  also  seen  the  creation  of 
many  auxiliary  organizations  formed  to  assist  employ- 
ers during  or  prior  to  labor  disputes,  by  means  of 
"spies,"  strike  breakers,  special  guards  and  detectives. 

Several  organizations,  formed  primarily  to  supply 
manufacturers  with  workers  who  will  ferret  out  the 
secrets  of  labor  organizations  and  give  the  results  of 
their  findings  to  employers,  have  been  brought  to 
light  In  labor  circles  during  the  past  few  years. 

The  Corporations*  Auxiliary  Company  of  Cleveland, 
Ohio,  was  alleged  by  the  labor  world  to  be  one  of  the 
most  conspicuous  suppliers  of  "spies"  In  1903  and 
1904.  The  following  frank  letter  sent  to  manufactur- 
ers gives  a  fairly  good  Idea  of  the  workings  of  this 
organization: 

"There  is  no  question  but  that  our  system  would  be 
of  great  benefit  to  you,  Inasmuch  as  you  employ  the 
very  class  of  men  who  are  the  cause  of  a  great  deal 
of  annoyance  and  trouble  to  the  employers,  and  who 
create  all  manner  of  disturbances  In  the  running  of  a 
plant  successfully.  .  .  .  We  can  either  furnish  you  a 
union  or  a  non-union  machinist,  or  a  union  or  a  non- 
union laborer  or  general  utility  man  who  can  get  into 
your  factory  and  can  work  on  the  inside  and  be  what 
we  term  the  'inside^  man,  and  get  and  report  all  the 
information  about  what  the  men  do  and  say  in  the 
plant,  who  are  union  men,  who  are  the  radical  ones 
and  the  agitators  in  the  shop,  so  that  their  work  can 
be  killed  by  dispensing  with  their  services  the  minute 
you  learn  who  they  are;  and  which  operatives  can  also 
become  a  member  of  the  union,  if  necessary  .  .  .  and 
in  this  way  furnish  the  client  with  all  information  and 
complete,  detailed  reports  regarding  the  action  and 
proceedings  of  the  union 

"We  have  another  operative  whom  we  term  an 
^outside  man,'  who  would  not  work  In  the  shop  or  plant 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  291 

of  the  client,  If  the  shop  is  to  be  kept  strictly  non-union, 
but  who  would  work  at  some  other  place  and  join  the 
union  and  get  all  union  Information  for  the  client  and 
all  Information  on  the  street  of  Interest.  This  man 
would  also  work  his  way  up  into  an  official  position  in 
the  union  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  in  breaking  it 
up.  .   .  . 

"Either  one  of  these  operatives  we  would  furnish 
you  at  the  rate  of  $150.00  per  month  and  his  railroad 
fare.  .  .,  and  out  of  the  above  sum  of  $150.00  are  to 
be  deducted  all  the  wages  which  the  operative  earns 
while  working  In  your  interest."^. 

Lucius  E.  Whiton,  secretary  of  the  D.  E.  Whiton 
Machine  Co.  of  New  London,  Connecticut,  who  had 
correspondence  with  this  corporation  in  July  of  1903, 
has  published  letters  of  similar  import,  and  gives  the 
result  of  an  interview  with  one  Mr.  J.  H.  Smith,  man- 
ager of  the  company  at  that  time.  According  to  Mr. 
Whiton,  Mr.  Smith  declared  that  he  had  been  in  that 
business  for  the  last  seventeen  years;  that  the  Auxiliary 
Corporations  Company,  a  $25,000  corporation  organ- 
ized In  1902,  had  a  force  of  several  hundred  men, 
directed  from  Cleveland;  that  its  men  were  delegates 
to  most  of  the  trade  union  state  and  national  conven- 
tions and  in  some  instances  national  officers  of  these 
unions;  that  its  first  business  had  been  with  big  rail- 
roads and  mines,  but  that  latterly  it  had  been  con- 
nected with  large  corporations  and  street  railways.  In 
many  instances  the  manufacturers  of  a  town  combined 
to  secure  the  services  of  one  of  the  agents.^ 

Just  how  the  company's  agent,  called  the  operative, 
works  on  arriving  at  a  town  Mr.  Smith  Is  quoted  as 
stating  to  Mr.  A.  W.  Ricker^  in  the  spacious  office  of 
the  concern : 

1  Italics  are  the  author's. 

2  From   Machine   Politics   and   Organized  Labor^   L,    E.   Whiton, 
1903,  published  at  New  London,  Conn. 

3  Spies  in  Trade  Unions,  p.  13. 


292  BOYCOTTS 

''Our  man  will  come  to  your  factory  and  get  ac- 
quainted. He  will  be  a  machinist,  as  most  of  our  men 
belong  to  the  machinists'  union.  If  he  finds  little  dis- 
position to  organize,  he  will  not  encourage  organiza- 
tion, but  will  engineer  things  so  as  to  keep  organization 
out.  If,  however,  there  seems  a  disposition  to  organ- 
ize he  will  become  the  leading  spirit  and  pick  out  just 
the  right  men  to  join.  Once  the  union  is  in  the  field 
its  members  can  keep  it  from  growing  if  they  know 
how,  and  our  man  knows  how.  Meetings  can  be  set 
far  apart.  A  contract  can  at  once  be  entered  into  with 
the  employer,  covering  a  long  period,  and  made  very 
easy  in  its  terms.  However,  these  tactics  may  not  be 
good,  and  the  union  spirit  may  be  so  strong  that  a  big 
organization  cannot  be  prevented.  In  this  case  our 
man  turns  extremely  radical.  He  asks  for  unreason- 
able things  and  keeps  the  union  embroiled  in  trouble. 
If  a  strike  comes,  he  will  be  the  loudest  man  in  the 
bunch,  and  will  counsel  violence  and  get  somebody  in 
trouble.  The  result  will  be  that  the  union  will  be 
broken  upJ^ 

That  this  spy  system  was  used  extensively  during 
the  labor  disturbances  in  Colorado  was  the  claim  of 
the  Western  Federation  of  Miners.  The  United  States 
Labor  Commission  reports  the  case  of  one  alleged 
spy:^ 

"One  A.  K.  Crane,  who  assisted  in  the  formation  of 
the  union  at  Colorado  City,  was  expelled  therefrom  on 
the  alleged  ground  that  he  was  a  detective  employed 
by  the  managers  to  report  to  them  the  proceedings  of 
the  union  and  the  names  of  the  men  who  joined  it. 
Afterward  he  was  forced  by  members  of  the  Federa- 
tion and  their  sympathizers  to  leave  Colorado  City." 

It  was  charged  that  Crane  was  employed  by  the 

manager  of  the  United  States  Reduction  and  Refining 

Company,  ostensibly  as  a  smelterman,  but  in  reality 

under  the  direction  of  a  detectives'  agency  as  a  spy;  that 

^  Labor  Disturbances  in  Colorado,  p.   112. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  293 

he  joined  the  newly  formed  Mill  and  Smeltermen's 
Union,  No.  125,  and  soon  after,  toward  the  end  of 
1905,  was  elected  the  union's  secretary  and  given 
charge  of  the  organization's  books  and  papers.  He 
suppHed  names  of  the  members  and  officers  to  the  firm, 
it  was  declared,  and,  as  a  result,  in  February,  1903, 
twenty-three  union  employees  were  forced  to  resign. 
His  frequent  communications  over  the  telephone,  pre- 
sumably with  the  superintendent  of  the  mill,  proved  his 
downfall.  Union  men  became  suspicious,  examined  his 
room,  secured,  they  alleged,  convicting  evidence,  and 
compelled  him  to  leave  town.^  Numerous  other  in- 
stances are  cited  by  the  miners,  including  that  of  Harry 
Orchard. 

In  March,  19 12,  a  prominent  official  of  the  Order 
of  Railway  Telegraphers  accused  the  Pennsylvania 
Railroad  of  employing  spies.  He  asserted  that  union 
officials  are  often  bribed  by  serving  in  positions  which 
prove  sinecures,  and  that  frequently  they  do  effective 
work  by  organizing  a  dual  union. ^ 

In  the  Colorado  strike,  it  was  alleged  that  these 
"spies"  were  furnished  by  the  Pinkerton  Detective 
Agency.  The  agency,  however,  denied  engaging  in 
this  work.^ 

The  unions  claim  that  a  number  of  detective  agen- 
cies have,  as  one  of  their  functions,  the  employment  of 
such  spies  as  well  as  the  breaking  of  strikes.  The  ad- 
vertisements and  letters  of  such  bureaus  seem  to  give 
credence  to  this  belief.  The  following  advertisement 
appearing  in  American  Industries,  the  official  organ  of 
the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  is  sugges- 
tive: 

"We  break  strikes — also  handle  labor  troubles  in  all 
their  phases.     We  are  prepared  to  place  secret  opera- 

1  Friedman,  The  Pinkerton  Labor  Spy  (Wilshire  Pub.  Co.),  p.  37- 

^New  York  Call,  March  3,  1912. 

3  Friedman,  The  Pinkerton  Labor  Spy. 


294  BOYCOTTS 

tives  who  are  skilled  mechanics  in  any  shop,  mill  or 
factory,  to  discover  whether  organization  is  being  done, 
material  wasted  or  stolen,  negligence  on  the  part  of 
employees,  etc.,  etc.  .  .  .  M^e  guard  property  during 
strikes,  employ  non-union  men  to  fill  places  of  strikers, 
fit  up  and  maintain  boarding  houses  for  them,  etc. 
Branches  in  all  parts  of  the  country;  write  us  for  refer- 
ences and  terms.  The  Joy  Detective  Agency,  Cleve- 
land, Ohio,  Incorporated."^ 

The  letter  quoted  below,  purporting  \o  come  from 
the  Employers'  Information  Service,  also  speaks  vol- 
umes concerning  anti-union  activities : 

"Dear  Sir:  Are  there  any  leaks  in  your  plant?  Of 
course — but  you  may  not  know  it.  And  how  are  you 
going  to  find  out?  It  is  the  small  leaks,  the  loss  of 
dollars  here  and  there,  which  help  to  eat  up  the  large 
profits.  Our  business  is  to  find  the  leaks  in  your  busi- 
ness, and  observe  what  it  is  not  for  the  eyes  and  ears 
of  the  boss  to  see  or  hear. 

"We  protect  you  against  loss  of  time,  labor  or  ma- 
terial, eliminate  graft  of  any  description,  theft,  and  all 
irregularities  that  exist  in  both  large  and  small  con- 
cerns; also  prevent  the  efforts  of  labor  union  agitators 
and  organizers  from  becoming  effective,  and  disrupting 
strikes  when  necessary. 

"Our  system  of  inspection  and  checking  of  employees 
must  necessarily  appeal  to  every  business  man  who  de- 
sires to  secure  the  most  efficient  service  from  them,  and 
to  know  whether  they  are  honest,  loyal,  and  work 
together  as  one  without  friction,  finally  obtaining 
profits."^ 

The  letter  also  pledges  to  protect  the  firm  against 
unfair  competitors,   guarantees   secrecy   and  urges   a 

^^  American  Industries,  August  15,  1907.    Italics  are  the  author's. 
The  address   of   the   service   was   301-305    Cuyahoga    Building. 
Cleveland,  Ohio.     The  letter  is   dated    May  8,    191 1,   and   marked 
Personal   and   Confidential."     A   copy  appeared    in   the   American 
tltnt,  in  June,  191 1. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  295 

conference.    It  is  signed  by  F.  J.  Heine,  General  Man- 
ager. 

The  following  letter  Is  said  to  have  been  recently 
mailed  to  manufacturers  and  employers  generally  by 
the  William  J.  Burns  detective  agency,  and  suggests 
some  interesting  activities  on  the  part  of  this  well- 
known  bureau. 

"Secret  service  properly  applied  with  the  right  men 
correctly  placed  can  be  made  extremely  profitable  when 
conditions  are  studied  and  cooperation  given.  Such 
service  is  our  specialty,  and  for.  that  reason  we  main- 
tain practical  men  of  all  trades  and  occupations,  both 
union  and  non-union.  In  their  daily  reports  they  sug- 
gest improvements  and  new  Ideas;  also  detail  the  agi- 
tating, dishonest,  non-producing  and  retarding  con- 
ditions. 

"Our  operative,  when  engaged  by  you,  Is,  to  every- 
one but  yourself,  merely  an  employee  In  your  establish- 
ment, and  whatever  he  receives  as  wages  is  credited  as 
part  payment  for  his  detective  service.  Daily  type- 
written reports  are  mailed  to  our  clients.  These  oper- 
atives are  continually  under  direct  supervision  of  the 
management  of  this  agency. 

"Within  the  heart  of  your  business  is  where  we 
operate,  down  In  the  dark  corners,  and  In  out-of-the- 
way  places  that  cannot  be  seen  from  your  office  or 
through  your  superintendent  or  foreman. 

"If  it  is  of  interest  to  you  to  know  to-day  what 
occurred  in  your  plant  yesterday,  and  be  In  a  position 
to  correct  these  faults  to-morrow,  we  would  be  pleased 
to  take  the  matter  up  with  you  further,  and  respect- 
fully ask  an  interview  for  one  of  our  representatives. 
"Yours  very  truly, 
"The  Wm.  J.  Burns  National  Detective  Agency. 
"R.  A.  Wilson,  Manager." 

The  alleged  activity  of  this  detective  bureau  in  the 
Cleveland  Garment  Makers'  strike  of  191 1  has  just 
been  brought  to  public  notice  through  the  confession 
and  conviction  of  Morris  Lubin,  sentenced  by  Judge 


296  BOYCOTTS 

Vickery,  June  23,  19 13.  According  to  Miss  Gertrude 
Barnum,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  strike,  Morris  Lubin, 
a  young  man  supposedly  a  garment  worker  of  Cleve- 
land, was  hired  by  the  cloak  manufacturers  of  that  city, 
through  the  William  J.  Burns  agency,  soon  after  the 
breaking  out  of  the  strike,  at  a  salary  of  $10  a  day, 
and  was  required  to  make  daily  reports  to  the  manu- 
facturers* association.  He  was  a  clever  talker,  was 
elected  into  the  union,  volunteered  as  a  leader  on  the 
picket  line,  and,  by  means  of  his  energy,  versatility  and 
daring,  soon  became  the  idol  of  some  of  the  younger 
element.  His  position  in  the  union  secure,  he  began 
to  urge  the  strikers  to  less  peaceful  action  on  the  picket 
line,  arguing  that  the  strike  was  the  beginning  of  the 
industrial  revolution  and  that  mild  actions  were  totally 
ineffective.  His  leadership  resulted  in  many  deeds  of 
violence  which  greatly  discredited  the  union.  Some  of 
his  activities  are  thus  described  by  Miss  Barnum: 

"Lubin  led  secret  raids  upon  the  homes  of  the  strike 
breakers.  He  plotted  unsuccessfully  to  blow  up  the 
hotel  occupied  by  the  'scabs.'  .  .  .  He  looted  and 
wrecked  other  places.  He  was  lavish  in  distributing 
lead  pipe,  blackjack  and  even  revolvers  to  the  hot  heads 
of  the  union  who  were  committing  the  outrages  unbe- 
known to  the  officers.  As  a  grand  climax  of  his  pro- 
gram of  violence  and  bloodshed,  Lubin  planned  an 
attack  on  a  train  bringing  strike  breakers  into 
town.  .  .  .  Revolvers  were  furnished  from  his  home. 
.  .  .  They  (Lubin  and  his  followers)  opened  fire  with 
their  guns,  shooting  into  the  air,  but  didn't  do  any 
damage."  ^ 

Finally  a  strike-breaker  was  slugged  by  Lubin  and 
three  strikers.  The  man  afterward  died.  The  vio- 
lence reported  in  connection  with  the  strike  aroused 
public  opinion  against  the  strikers,  who  finally  lost. 
Miss  Barnum  believes,  as  a  result  of  these  deeds.  At 
^New   York  Globe,  July  16,   1913. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  297 

one  time,  In  fact,  the  strikers  were  about  to  settle  with 
a  manufacturer  when  Lubin,  Miss  Barnum  alleged, 
broke  up  the  conference  by  throwing  an  ink  bottle  at 
the  employer.  On  the  trial  for  assaulting  the  strike- 
breaker, the  "spy"  broke  down,  confessed  all,  and  was 
sentenced  to  six  months'  Imprisonment. 

The  use  of  the  spy  system  in  connection  with  the 
Buck's  Stove  Co.^  and  the  activities  of  the  National 
Association  of  Manufacturers,  have  already  been  sug- 
gested. In  the  recent  Paterson  strike,  a  member  of 
the  strike  committee  admitted  in  court  that  he  was 
employed  by  a  detective  agency  to  spy  on  the  workers. 
It  is  difficult,  because  of  the  secrecy  surrounding  Its 
employment,  to  tell  just  how  extensively  it  operates, 
but,  from  the  evidence  available,  we  may  conclude  that 
the  use  made  of  it  by  unscrupulous  employers  Is  a  con- 
siderable one. 

Private  Detectives 

In  order  to  protect  their  property,  and  at  the  same 
time  intimidate  the  strikers,  employers  frequently  hire 
armed  guards,  who  are  accused  of  many  outrages  in 
behalf  of  the  bosses.  In  the  recent  West  Virginia 
labor  disturbances,  much  testimony  was  adduced  indi- 
cating the  manner  in  which  such  guards  were  employed 
by  the  mine  companies  to  break  strikes.  Mr.  Harold 
E.  West  of  the  Baltimore  Sun,  an  eye  witness  to  the 
controversies,  thus  describes  the  activities  of  these 
hired  detectives : 

"These  mine  guards  are  an  Institution  all  along  the 
creek  in  the  non-union  sections  of  the  State.  They  are 
as  a  rule  supplied  by  the  Baldwin-Felts  Detective 
Agency  of  Roanoke  and  Bluefield.  It  is  said  the  total 
number  in  the  mining  districts  of  West  Virginia  reaches 
well  up  to  2,500.   .   .   .    These  Baldwin  guards  who  are 

*  See  supra,   p.    138. 


298  BOYCOTTS 

engaged  by  the  mining  companies  to  do  their  'rough 
work'  take  the  place  of  Pinkertons,  who  formerly  were 
used  for  such  work  by  the  mining  companies.  Since 
the  Homestead  strike  in  the  steel  mills  years  ago,  when 
the  Pinkertons  fired  into  the  strikers  and  killed  a  num- 
ber of  them,  this  class  of  business  has  gradually  drifted 
away  from  the  Pinkertons  and  much  of  it  is  held  by  the 
Baldwin-Felts  agency.  .  .  .  Before  the  State  troops 
went  into  the  region  and  took  their  rifles  away  from 
them,  the  mine  guards  went  about  everywhere,  gun  in 
hand,  searching  trains,  halting  stranger^,  ejecting  un- 
desirables, turning  miners  out  of  their  houses  and  doing 
whatever  'rough  work'  the  companies  felt  they  needed 
to  have  done.  Stories  of  their  brutalities  are  heard  on 
every  hand  along  the  creeks.  Some  are  unquestionably 
exaggerated,  but  the  truth  of  many  can  be  proved  and 
has  been  proved.  .  .  .  Whenever  possible  they  are 
clothed  with  some  semblance  of  the  authority  of  the 
law,  either  by  being  sworn  in  as  railroad  detectives,  as 
constables  or  deputy  sheriffs.  But  for  all  that,  a  num- 
ber have  been  indicted  for  offenses  ranging  from  com- 
mon assault  to  murder.  .  .  .  Yet  rarely  has  any 
trouble  resulted  for  the  guards."^ 

The  commission  appointed  In  191 2  by  Governor 
Glasscock,  to  investigate  conditions,  summarized  the 
activities  of  the  guards. 

"From  the  cloud  of  witnesses  and  mass  of  testimony 
figuring  in  the  hearings  there  emerges  clearly  and  un- 
mistakably the  fact  that  these  guards  recklessly  and 
flagrantly  violated,  in  respect  to  the  miners  on  Paint 
Creek  and  Cabin  Creek,  the  rights  guaranteed  by  natu- 
ral justice  and  the  Constitution  to  every  citizen,  how- 
soever lowly  his  condition  and  state.  .  .  .  Many 
crimes  and  outrages  laid  to  their  charge  were  found, 
upon  careful  sifting,  to  have  no  foundation  in  fact,  but 
the  denial  of  the  right  of  peaceable  assembly  and  of 

'  Harold   E.  West,  Civil  War  in  the  West  Virginia  Coal  Mines, 
Survey,  April  5,   1913. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  299 

freedom  of  speech,  many  and  grievous  assaults  on 
unarmed  miners  show  that  their  main  purpose  was  to 
overawe  the  miners  and  their  adherents,  and,  if  neces- 
sary, to  beat  and  cudgel  them  into  submission."^ 

Former  Governor  Dawson  of  West  Virginia  char- 
acterized them  as  ^'vicious  and  dare-devil  men  who 
seem  to  aim  to  add  to  their  viciousness  by  bulldozing 
and  terrorizing  the  people."^ 

Senator  James  E.  Martine  of  New  Jersey,  on 
his  return  from  the  hearings  of  the  West  Virginia  In- 
vestigating Committee  in  Charleston,  June  20,  19 13, 
verified  the  foregoing  reports.  He  is  quoted  as  say- 
ing: 

*'Quinn  Morton  (a  mine  operator)  admitted  on  the 
stand  that  he  had  bought  rifles  for  the  guards  and 
told  them  how  to  use  them.  .  .  .  Women  and  chil- 
dren were  maltreated  by  the  operatives  and  their  hired 
thugs.  Men  were  killed  and  buried  like  dogs,  and  no 
arrests  were  made.  .   .  . 

"Then  we  heard  the  stories,  not  from  one  witness, 
but  a  hundred,  of  how  galling  guns  were  loaded  upon 
flat  cars  and  freight  cars,  and  these  trains  were  run  at 
night  through  the  mining  villages  where  the  strikers 
were  with  their  families.  .  .  .  Former  Governor 
Glasscock  told  us  there  were  sixteen  of  these  machine 
guns  sent  into  the  district.  These  trains  would  run  up 
to  a  village,  usually  a  single  street  along  the  railroad 
track,  the  mine  guards  would  fire  a  couple  of  rifle  shots 
from  the  cars  to  incite  the  strikers  to  return  the  fire, 
and  then  the  machine  guns  would  be  brought  into 
action,  and  the  train  would  move  the  length  of  the 
village  at  a  snail's  pace,  spitting  bullets  at  the  rate  of 
250  a  minute,  perforating  the  tents  and  shacks,  and 
mowing  down  and  maiming  and  killing  men  and  women 
and  defenseless  children."^ 

^  Quoted  by  West,  ibid.,  p.  48.    Italics  are  the  author's. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  49. 

^  Quoted,  New  York  Call,  June  21,  1913.     Italics  are  the  author's. 


300  BOYCOTTS 

The  descriptions  of  Mr.  Michaelson  in  Everybody's 
Magazine  are  even  more  ghastly  than  the  foregoing.^ 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  this  is  a  most  unusual 
case  of  guard  brutality,  if  the  statement  of  events  is  an 
accurate  one.  Yet  many  other  similar  instances  are 
recorded  in  big  strikes,  especially  those  in  the  basic 
industries — coal,  steel,  copper,  lumber,  etc. 

It  is  doubtful  if,  even  in  West  Virginia,  this  perni- 
cious guard  system  will  be  continued. 

An  historic  example  of  the  lawless  activities  of  de- 
tectives, operating  with  the  business  element  in  the  com- 
munity, is  given  in  the  Colorado  strike  of  1903  and 
1904.  Their  deportation  of  "undesirables"  from  the 
strike  district  is  thus  picturesquely  described  in  the 
report  prepared  under  the  direction  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Labor  :2 

"On  the  night  of  March  14,  1904,  about  100  mem- 
bers of  the  Citizens'  Alliance  (an  organization  con- 
sisting of  business  men,  mine  owners,  managers,  etc.) 
held  a  meeting  in  Red  Men's  Hall,  after  which  they 
armed  themselves,  searched  the  town,  and  took  into 
custody  about  60  union  men  and  sympathizers.  In 
some  instances  the  doors  of  residences  were  forced 
open.  The  men  who  were  captured  were  brought  to 
a  vacant  store  and  about  1.30  o'clock  in  the  morning 
were  marched  to  the  depot  and  loaded  into  two 
coaches.  As  the  special  train  bearing  them  departed, 
a  fusillade  of  shots  was  fired  into  the  air  by  the  mob. 
Among  the  leaders  of  the  mob  were  Bulkeley  Wells, 
manager  of  the  Smuggler  Union  mine,  and  John  Her- 
ron,  manager  of  the  Tom  Boy  mine.  One  of  those 
deported  was  Stewart  B.  Forbes,  secretary-treasurer  of 
the  Telluride  Miners'  Union.  Another  was  Antone 
Matti,  local  agent  for  a  brewery.  Another  was  A.  H. 
Floaten,  the  local  leader  of  the  Socialist  Party  and 

*  Everybody's,  May,  1913.  Also  read  hearings  before  U.  S.  Senate 
Com.  on  "Education  and  Labor,"  63d  Cong.,  ist  Ses.,  pursuant  to 
S.^Res.  27- 

*  Labor  Disturbances  in  Colorado,  p.  249. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  301 

manager  of  the  People's  Supply  Company,  the  largest 
store  in  town.  The  door  of  his  residence  was  broken 
open  and  he  was  found  partly  undressed,  his  wife 
having  retired.  A  revolver  was  pointed  at  him,  and 
he  was  wounded  in  the  head  by  being  struck  with  the 
butt  of  the  weapon.  He  was  marched  from  home 
without  being  allowed  to  put  on  his  shoes  or  hat.  Fif- 
teen members  of  the  mob  accompanied  the  train  to 
Ridgway,  where  the  prisoners  were  ordered  to  get  off, 
and  further  ordered  never  to  return  to  Telluride." 

Following  the  explosion  at  Victor,  the  manner  in 
which  officials  were  unceremoniously  compelled  to  re- 
sign from  office  and  the  way  in  which  property  was 
destroyed  by  this  lawless  element  are  thus  portrayed 
by  the  Commission  :^ 

''A  meeting  of  mine  managers  was  held  at  the  Mili- 
tary Club  at  the  Army  Building  at  Victor,  and  they 
decided  upon  drastic  measures.  A  committee  of  mine 
owners  left  the  club  rooms,  found  Sheriff  Robertson  (a 
union  sympathizer),  and  informed  him  that  the  mine 
owners  desired  to  have  a  meeting  with  him.  Robert- 
son accompanied  them,  and  when  he  was  inside  the 
club  rooms  his  resignation  as  sheriff  was  demanded. 
He  refused  to  tender  it,  whereupon  guns  were  pro- 
duced, a  coiled  rope  was  dangled  before  him,  and  on 
the  outside  several  shots  were  fired.  He  was  told  that 
unless  he  resigned  the  mob  outside  the  building  would 
be  admitted,  and  he  would  be  taken  out  and  hanged!^ 
He  then  resigned.  A  new  sheriff  was  appointed.  "The 
newly  appointed  sheriff  appointed  his  own  undersheriff 
and  about  100  deputies.  .  .  .  Squads  of  soldiers, 
deputy  sheriffs  and  armed  citizens  scattered  over  the 
district  and  arrested  union  members.  About  175  were 
captured  and  taken  to  the  'bull  pens'  at  Victor,  Inde- 
pendence and  Goldfield.  .  .  .  All  of  the  union  stores 
were  closed  and  many  of  the  goods  in  the  stores  at 
Victor  and  Cripple  Creek  and  all  goods  in  the  smaller 
*  Italics  are  the  author's. 


302  BOYCOTTS 

stores  at  Goldfield  and  Anaconda  were  taken  or  de- 
stroyed." 

The  report  then  records  the  arrest  of  the  whole  force 
of  the  union  paper,  the  Victor  Record,  the  forced  resig- 
nation of  many  other  civil  officers  in  the  Cripple  Creek 
district  who  were  in  sympathy  with  the  miners,  the 
subsequent  wrecking  of  the  Record  office,^  the  deporta- 
tion of  scores  of  miners,^  the  severe  thugging  of  many 
of  the  well-known  labor  organizers,  inc4uding  James 
Mooney  and  W.  R.  Fairley,  members  of  the  National 
Executive  Board  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Labor,^ 
Chris.  Evans,  financial  manager  of  District  No.  15 
during  the  strike,  and  personal  representative  in  Colo- 
rado of  President  John  Mitchell,*  W.  M.  Wardjon, 
National  Organizer  of  the  United  Mine  Workers,^ 
and  others. 

Private  Detectives  Armed  with  State  Authority 

The  strikers  declare  that  at  times  many  officers  of 
the  peace,  ostensibly  employed  by  the  state  to  preserve 
order,  are  actually  hired  by  the  employers,  and  faith- 
fully serve  them,  though  clothed  in  all  the  authority 
of  the  state.  Such  were  the  conditions  in  a  recent  coal 
strike  in  Westmoreland  County,  Pennsylvania,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Richard  L.  Jones.    He  declared : 

"The  employers  got  the  county  sheriff  to  hire  a  lot 
of  deputies  to  act  as  county  policemen.  They  paid  the 
sheriff  $185,000.  He  charged  the  companies  $5  a  day 
for  each  deputy.  He  paid  each  deputy  $3  a  day.  .  .  . 
For  the  coal  companies,  he  hired  a  lot  of  husky  thugs 
and  decorated  them  with  a  club  and  gun  and  a  police- 

"^  Labor  Disturbances  in  Colorado,  p.  263. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  260,  288,  309. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  342. 
*/fctrf.,  p.  344. 
^Ihxd.,  p.  354. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  305 

man's  star.  Miners  thereafter  were  not  allowed  to 
gather  in  groups  on  any  of  the  companies'  grounds,  and 
they  were  not  allowed  to  walk  in  more  than  pairs  and 
in  closer  file  than  ten  feet  apart."^ 

Charges  of  the  employment  of  private  detectives  and 
of  the  indirect  hiring  of  special  deputies  were  also  made 
in  the  19 12  fight  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Timber  Work- 
ers against  the  big  lumber  interests  in  Louisiana, ^  in 
the  fight  of  the  miners  against  the  Utah  Copper  Com- 
pany and  its  allies,^  in  the  1909  struggle  of  the  steel 
workers  in  McKees  Rocks,*  West  Virginia,  Home- 
stead, and  in  numerous  other  battles  of  labor.  The 
conservative  Industrial  Commission  thus  admitted  and 
condemned  the  employment  of  such  detectives: 

"The  chief  objection,  aside  from  the  doubt  as  to  its 
technical  legality,  which  is  made  to  the  practice  some- 
times resorted  to  by  employers  of  hiring  special  police 
detectives,  Pinkerton  men,  and  other  armed  guards  to 
protect  their  property  in  labor  disputes,  is  that  such 
hired  officers  are  likely  to  be  extreme  in  their  measures. 
Being  often  from  other  localities  or  States,  they  have 
no  understanding  of  the  affairs  at  issue  in  the  dispute, 
no  sympathy  for  the  workmen,  and  are  therefore  dis- 
posed to  go  as  far  as  the  law  allows,  or  even  further, 
in  resisting  the  acts  of  the  men.  The  reply  made  by 
employers  is  that  local  authorities  are  often  improperly 
biased,  and  therefore  unwilling  or,  perhaps,  unable 
to  enforce  law  effectively."^ 

While  the  practice  of  importing  armed  men  for  the 
protection  of  private  property  has  been  prohibited  in  a 
number  of  states,  the  employers  will  undoubtedly  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  employ  such  men  in  many  future 

^Collier's  Weekly,  April  i,  191 1. 

^The  Southern  Oligarchy,  by  Covington  Hall,   Coming  Nation; 
August  24,  1912. 
'New  York  Call,  October  6,  1912. 
*  International  Socialist  Review,  October,  1909. 
'Final  Report  of  Industrial  Commission,  v.  19,  p.  899. 


304  BOYCOTTS 

disputes,  and  these  will  probably  serve  in  many  in- 
stances to  intimidate  strikers  in  their  efforts  to  raise 
their  standard  of  living.  It  is  of  course  true  that  many 
of  the  acts  which  have  been  enumerated  were  not  com- 
mitted entirely  without  provocation. 

Organizations  Supplying  Strike  Breakers 

The  importation  of  strike  breakers  in  large  quan- 
tities, in  districts  where  the  strike  occurs,»is  also  a  com- 
mon practice  of  the  employing  class.  Numerous  de- 
tective and  strike-breaking  agencies,  such  as  the  Far- 
ley agency,  devote  much  of  their  time  to  rounding  up 
the  unemployed,  and  having  them  transported  to  the 
strike  district.    The  various  employers'  organizations, 

(  as  previously  told,  are  often  ready  to  assist  in  trans- 
porting men  and  women  from  one  part  of  the  country 

'  to  another  to  take  the  places  of  the  strikers. 

Some  place  the  beginning  of  the  extensive  practice 
of  strike-breaking  in  the  year  1891,  when  Jack  White- 
head, a  former  union  man,  brought  40  negroes  called 
the  "40  thieves"  from  Birmington,  Alabama,  to  break 
the  strike  of  the  Amalgamated  Association  against  the 
Clinton  steel  mills  near  Pittsburgh.  Whitehead,  who 
also  assisted  in  the  Homestead  strike  of  1892,  was 
supposed  to  have  been  given  $10,000  for  his  successful 
efforts.^ 

Many  avow  that  the  persons  transported  to  strike 
regions  are  often  deceived  into  the  belief  that  no  strike 
exists  and  frequently  are  held  against  their  will,  after 
arriving  on  the  scene  of  the  disturbance.  The  Indus- 
trial Commission  thus  comments  on  this  practice  :^ 

"The  importation  of  workingmen  from  foreign 
countries  to  take  the  place  of  strikers  was  quite  a  com- 
mon practice.      Considerable   numbers   of   foreigners 

^F.  B.  McQuiston,  Independent,  October  17,  1901. 

2  Final  Report  of  Industrial  Commission,  v.  19,  pp.  890,  891. 


REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING  305 

were  brought  to  the  coal  mines  in  this  way.  The  alien 
contract  labor  law  has  largely  done  away  with  this 
practice.  In  a  large  number  of  strikes,  however,  em- 
ployers have  sent  agents  to  other  States  to  collect 
bodies  of  men  and  to  'import'  them.  In  some  instances 
the  men  thus  imported  are  of  much  lower  skill  and 
standard  of  living  than  the  strikers.  Evidence  before 
the  Industrial  Commission  shows  that  negro  laborers 
have,  in  several  instances,  been  brought  from  long  dis- 
tances for  this  purpose.  This  occurred  in  Pana  and 
Virden,  111.,  and  in  recent  Colorado  mining  strikes. 
The  opposition  of  the  workingmen  to  the  importation 
of  lower  classes  of  labor  is  so  strong  that  it  has  at 
times  resulted  in  physical  violence.  ...  It  is  doubt- 
less true  at  times  that  such  imported  laborers  are  influ- 
enced by  unduly  glowing  accounts  of  the  conditions 
under  which  they  will  work,  and  are  not  always  in- 
formed of  the  existence  of  the  strike.  In  some  cases 
it  is  the  intention  of  the  employer  who  hires  men  of  this 
class  to  keep  them  only  long  enough  to  break  the  strike, 
and  to  permit  the  gradual  employment  of  more  compe- 
tent hands,  possibly  of  the  strikers  themselves." 

That  these  methods  are  not  wholly  extinct  at  the 
present  day  may  be  concluded  from  the  following  para- 
graphs of  Mr.  Allan  L.  Benson : 

"Men  were  told  that  they  were  wanted  for  work  In 
California  .  .  .  that  they  were  needed  to  build  cities 
in  West  Virginia  .  .  .  that  they  were  wanted  to  build 
railroads.  Men  were  told  almost  everything  except  the 
truth.  They  were  told  they  would  be  taken  to  and 
from  their  place  of  destination  without  expense  to 
themselves  .  .  .  that  they  would  be  paid  wages  of  ex- 
ceptional richness  and  fatness.  Once  snared,  they  were 
imprisoned  in  rooms  near  railroad  stations,  marched 
under  guard  to  the  trains,  locked  In  the  cars,  com- 
pelled to  make  trips  requiring  as  many  as  thirty  hours 
without  eating,  and  at  last  dumped  oil  at  the  mines  In 
West  Virginia  and  told  to  go  to  work.    Some  refused 


3o6  BOYCOTTS 

and  were  forced  to  go  to  work  at  the  point  of  the  pistol. 
Some  worked  a  few  days  and  demanded  their  wages, 
only  to  be  told  that  they  still  owed  the  company  the 
difference  between  their  earnings  and  their  railway 
fare.  .  .  .  All  of  these  statements  have  been  made, 
most  of  them  under  oath."^ 

Senator  Martine  of  New  Jersey,  on  returning  from 
West  Virginia,  confirmed  most  of  these  statements,^ 
as  did  other  writers.^  The  possibilities  of  strike-break- 
ing residing  in  the  various  employers'  'organizations 
have  already  been  dwelt  upon.  The  letters  of  the  vari- 
ous detective  bureaus  printed  elsewhere  suggest  some- 
thing of  their  strike-breaking  activities. 

It  may  be  stated  that  the  endeavor  to  bring  large 
numbers  of  strike-breakers  from  various  parts  of  the 
country  to  take  the  places  of  strikers  has  become  a 
more  extensive  and  a  better  organized  business, 
within  the  past  few  years.  It  was  common  rumor 
in  Boston,  during  a  recent  strike  of  the  telephone  oper- 
ators, that  large  numbers  of  young  women  were  im- 
ported from  New  York  to  Boston,  and  kept  for  some 
days  in  the  hotels  of  the  city,  so  as  to  force  the  opera- 
tives to  agree  to  the  employers'  terms.  During  a  re- 
cent waiters'  strike  in  New  York,  many  hundreds  of 
workers  were  in  turn  imported  from  Boston  to  take 
the  places  of  the  striking  men. 

Metropolitan  Magazine,  June,  1913.  See  also  hearings  before 
Senate  Com.,  pursuant  to  S.  Res.  37,  p.  194  and  elsewhere. 

^  Quoted,  New  York  Call,  July,  1913. 

^  See  Mr.  Michaelson's  article  in  Everybody's  Magazine.  May. 
1913. 


CHAPTER   XIX 

SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  REASONS  FOR  LEGALIZING 
THE  BOYCOTT — Continued 

The  Control  of  the  Press 

It  is  frequently  possible  for  the  employers  to  mar- 
shall  against  the  strikers  various  organs  of  public 
opinion — the  press,  the  lecture  platform  and  the  pulpit. 
The  chief  organ  is  the  press.  Through  its  columns, 
especially  in  the  smaller  towns,  the  employers  can  gen- 
erally have  their  side  of  the  labor  question  adequately 
represented,  while  the  public  frequently  receives  most 
unfair  accounts  of  the  reasons  for  the  strike  and  the 
conduct  of  the  strikers. 

The  reasons  for  this  discrimination  are  manifold. 
The  modern  newspaper  is  run  chiefly  for  dividends, 
as  is  the  case  with  every  other  business.  Its  chief 
source  of  income  is  advertising.  Mr.  Will  Irwin^  cal- 
culates that  the  advertisers  pay  into  the  average 
metropolitan  paper  from  $3.35  to  $4  for  every  $1 
brought  in  by  subscribers  and  newsstand  sales.  In  one 
New  York  paper,  the  ratio  of  income  was  $1  from 
sales  to  $9  from  advertising.  It  is  imperative  that  the 
heads  of  the  newspapers  take  good  care  of  their  chief 
sources  of  supply.  The  advertisers  know  their  advan- 
tage, and,  in  many  instances,  are  not  slow  to  utilize  it. 
If  a  strike  is  being  carried  on  against  their  concern, 
they  can  threaten  to  discontinue  their  *'ad,"  should  ad- 
verse criticism  appear,  and  this  the  newspaper  knows. 

^  Irwin,  "The  American  Newspaper,"  Collier's  Weekly,  May  27, 
1912. 

307 


3o8  BOYCOTTS 

Advertisers  are  often  interested  financially  or  otherwise 
in  many  other  concerns  not  advertising.  Their  request 
to  "go  easy"  on  a  story  relating  to  such  other  concerns 
is  often  heeded. 

The  owners  of  the  papers,  as  well,  are  frequently  in- 
terested in  other  enterprises,  and  pressure  may  be 
brought  to  bear  from  them  to  "color  a  story"  in  the 
most  acceptable  way.  The  owner's  associates  and  those 
of  his  family  are  likely  to  be  among  the  more  conser- 
vative of  the  population,  and  the  desire  for  approba- 
tion among  his  friends  often  Influences  the  manner  in 
which  the  news  of  the  paper  is  handled.  A  great 
newspaper  Is  frequently  In  need  of  credit;  the  owner 
Is  often  a  large  borrower.  The  working  class  does  not 
directly  extend  credit  or  provide  loans. 

The  publicity  bureaus  which  are  being  established 
by  so  many  of  the  large  corporations  and  conservative 
interests  furnish  news  in  easy  shape  to  print,  and  often 
accompany  the  news  Items  with  a  request  to  charge  the 
expense  of  the  insertion  to  themselves.  The  employers 
are  generally  more  accessible  when  news  Is  desired,  and 
accessIblHty  Is  a  great  factor  In  these  days  of  hourly 
editions.  The  reporters  are  constantly  on  the  lookout 
for  "good  copy."  Only  the  strange,  the  startling,  is 
the  best  copy.  If  reporters  can  write  a  story  of  a  riot 
or  an  unusual  disturbance  during  a  strike,  it  is  sure  to 
be  published.  If  they  are  "space"  men,  they  thrive  on 
such  disturbances.  If  they  are  paid  a  regular  salary, 
they  are  fully  as  eager  for  the  "display"  which  the 
good  "story"  wins.  And  the  story  helps  to  sell  the 
papers.  It  often  happens  that  strikers  and  their  meth- 
ods are  utterly  misrepresented  because  of  this  American 
standard  of  what  constitutes  news.  The  chief  fear  of 
the  paper  is  the  fear  of  a  libel  suit.  The  more  Im- 
pecunious the  one  libeled,  the  less  the  fear.  The  Im- 
pecunious striker  is  not  handled  so  carefully,  there- 
fore, as  his  well-to-do  brother. 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         309 

If  a  disturbance  Is  actually  followed  by  arrests,  the 
reporter,  In  almost  every  Instance,  when  the  story  is 
new,  must  needs  be  content  with  the  report  given  by 
the  police.  The  side  of  the  arrested  man  is  not  gen- 
erally obtainable  at  the  time.  These  are  among  the 
causes  which  often  prevent  the  daily  newspapers  from 
being  an  Impartial  agency  through  which  the  world 
may  be  informed  of  the  rights  of  the  worker.  This 
condition  frequently  leads  to  the  necessity  on  the  part 
of  the  worker  to  issue  circulars  depicting  conditions 
and  urging  customers  to  abstain  from  purchasing  the 
goods  of  the  "unfair"  concern,  as  the  only  method 
by  which  he  can  present  his  side  to  the  public.  Of 
course,  where  labor  and  Socialist  journals  are  issued, 
he  has  these  papers  as  his  mouthpieces.  In  large 
cities,  where  the  labor  movement  Is  strong  and  there 
are  many  papers,  he  Is  often  treated  with  fairness. 

In  commenting  upon  the  attitude  of  the  modern 
press.  Dr.  Walter  E.  Weyl^  says: 

"It  Is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge,  reinforced  by 
much  indirect  evidence,  that  many  journals  will  not 
print  news  adverse  to  local  department  stores.  Rather 
the  loss  of  a  thousand  subscriptions  than  the  slightest 
animadversion  upon  these  Atlases  of  city  journalism. 
Public  franchise  corporations,  banks,  railroads  and 
other  great  undertakings  enjoy  lesser,  though  still  con- 
siderable, immunity.  .  .  .  Of  greater  importance  is 
an  influence  which  the  plutocracy  learns  to  exert  upon 
the  general  tone  of  newspapers.  ...  In  a  choice  be- 
tween approximately  equal  mediums  of  publicity  a 
great  advertiser  often  favors  journals  which  more 
closely  approximate  his  views.  A  trust  pays  directly 
or  indirectly  for  the  printing  of  news  or  comments 
valuable  to  It  indirectly  and  to  big  business  generally. 
It  furnishes  free  copy,  together  with  paid  advertising. 
It  subsidizes  the  furnishing  of  boiler  plate  matter  to 
county  papers.     As  the  great  journalistic  enterprises 

*  Weyl,  The  New  Democracy,  p.   124. 


3IO  BOYCOTTS 

grow,  as  the  margin  of  loss  on  each  copy  is  spread 
over  a  larger  circulation,  as  the  necessity  for  credit 
facilities  increases,  the  plutocracy,  through  its  control 
of  a  hierarchy  of  banks,  sets  its  seal  upon  the  policy 
of  an  increasing  number  of  journals.  The  owner  of  a 
paper,  usually  a  man  of  wealth  and  debts,  is  subject  to 
financial  pressure  upon  his  newspaper  and  outside  ven- 
tures, as  well  as  to  social  and  political  pressure." 

The  willingness  of  the  big  interest  to  pay  for  news 
is  illustrated  by  the  following  letter,  received  by  the 
Springfield  Republican,  and  published  In  their  editorial 
columns  of  April  i8,  1905.  The  letter  was  signed 
by  J.  Harvey  White,  for  the  Boston  Elevated  Rail- 
road Company,  during  a  fight  for  a  franchise.  It 
reads: 

"Enclosed  you  will  find  copy  for  reading  matter  to 
be  used  in  your  paper  Tuesday,  April  18.  It  is  under- 
stood that  this  will  be  set  as  news  matter  in  news  type, 
with  a  head  line  at  the  top  of  the  column  and  without 
advertising  marks  of  any  sort.  First  page  position  is 
desired,  unless  your  rules  debar  that  position.  Please 
send  your  bill  at  the  lowest  net  cash  rates  to  the  under- 
signed at  the  above  address."^  The  news  item  fol- 
lows, predicting  that  the  Boston  gas  contract  is  satis- 
factory to  all  concerned.  Many  of  the  other  papers  in 
Massachusetts  printed  the  story. 

A  New  York  legislator  and  part  owner  of  a  news- 
paper, a  few  years  ago,  declared  that  a  big  public  util- 
ity corporation  had  just  begun  to  advertise  extensively 
in  the  press  of  the  state,  including  his  own  paper.  In 
anticipation  of  the  report  of  a  legislative  committee 
regarding  the  character  of  the  corporation. 

That  pressure  during  strikes  has  often  been  exerted 
against  those  papers  which  lean  on  the  side  of  the 
strikers,  is  alleged.     The  boycotting  of  Senator  Pat- 

^  Italics  are  the  author's. 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         311 

terson's  Rocky  Mountain  News  by  the  Citizens'  Alli- 
ance, because  it  favored  the  miners  during  the  Colo- 
rado labor  war,  is  an  instance  in  point. 

"Though  one  of  the  declared  objects  of  the  Citizens* 
Alliance  was  to  discourage  boycotts  as  well  as  strikes 
and  lockouts,"  declared  the  United  States  Labor  Com- 
missions,^ "the  Citizens'  Alliance  of  Denver,  in  the 
autumn  of  1903,  adopted  the  following  resolution, 
which  was  openly  printed: 

"Resolved,  that  we,  as  a  body,  urge  upon  the  Denver 
Advertisers'  Association  the  importance  ^  ooperating 
with  us  in  this  effort,  and  request  such  association  to 
so  place  its  advertising  matter  as  to  assist  in  upbuild- 
ing, instead  of  tearing  down,  business  interests,  to  the 
end  that  a  just  and  conservative  policy  may  be  adopted 
and  advocated  by  the  daily  press." 

Mr.  J.  C.  Craig,  state  president  of  the  Alliance, 
who  was  active  in  instituting  the  boycott,  is  quoted  as 
saying  at  that  time,  "We  don't  propose  to  have  any 
of  our  advertisers  furnish  ammunition  to  a  paper  that 
sympathizes  with  trade  unions,  like  Senator  Patter- 
son's Rocky  Mountain  News,'^  According  to  Will  Ir- 
win,^ this  boycott  would  probably  have  meant  bank- 
ruptcy had  not  Patterson  gone  into  the  market  and 
snatched  up  some  $40,000  of  stock  of  one  of  the 
stores,  which  he  afterward  induced  to  advertise  again 
in  the  news.     The  others  followed. 

A  militia  man's  characterization  of  the  fairness  of 
the  reports  in  the  press,  regarding  the  situation  at 
Lawrence,  is  of  interest:^ 

"We  went  to  Lawrence  during  what  was  expected 
to  be  a  critical  week  of  the  strike,  during  the  week  the 
newspapers  reported  riots  and  prospective  riots.  We 
saw  nearly  everything  which  happened  and  there  was 

^  Labor  Disturbances  in  Colorado,  p.  266. 

^"The  American  Newspaper,"  Will  Irwin,  Colliers,  June  17,  1911. 

'"A  Militia  Man's  Experience,"   The  Survey,  April  6,   1912. 


312  BOYCOTTS 

nothing  of  a  serious  nature.  Newspaper  reports  were 
absolutely  false.  One  occurrence  which  was  featured 
as  a  'riot'  in  extras  was  the  largest  demonstration 
which  occurred  and  was  entirely  peaceful.^  The  north 
side  of  Essex  Street  was  crowded  with  strikers  who 
walked  along  in  groups.  The  police  decided  that  there 
were  too  many  and  turned  the  head  of  the  procession 
up  a  side  street.  A  few  resisted  this  and  were  ar- 
rested." 

That  the  control  of  the  papers  by  the  department 
stores  leads  at  times  to  the  total  suppression  of  damag- 
ing news,  even  to  the  extent  of  ignoring  the  killing  of 
a  striker,  is  apparently  borne  out  by  the  following  in- 
stances cited  by  Prof.  E.  A.  Ross : 

**During  the  strike  of  the  elevator  men  in  the  large 
stores  the  business  agent  of  the  elevator  starters'  union 
was  beaten  to  death  in  an  alley  behind  a  certain  em- 
porium by  a  'strong  arm'  man  hired  by  that  firm.  The 
story,  supported  by  affidavits,  was  given  by  a  responsi- 
ble lawyer  to  three  newspaper  men,  each  of  whom  ac- 
cepted it  as  true,  and  promised  to  print  it.  The  ac- 
count never  appeared. 

''In  another  city  the  sales  girls  in  the  big  shops  had 
an  exceedingly  mean  and  oppressive  contract,  which,  if 
generally  known,  would  have  made  the  firms  odious  to 
the  public.  A  prominent  social  worker  brought  these 
contracts  and  evidence  as  to  the  bad  conditions  which 
had  been  established  under  them  to  every  newspaper 
in  the  city.    Not  one  would  print  a  line  on  the  subject. 

"On  the  outbreak  of  a  justifiable  street  car  strike 
the  newspapers  were  disposed  to  treat  it  in  a  sympa- 
thetic way.  Suddenly  they  veered  and  became  unani- 
mously hostile  to  the  strikers.  Inquiry  showed  that 
the  big  merchants  had  threatened  to  withdraw  their  ad- 
vertising unless  the  newspapers  changed  their  atti- 
tude."2 

'  Italics  are  the  author's. 

"  Review  of  Reviews,  April,  1910. 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         313 

On  a  paper  in  which  the  writer  was  employed  for 
some  time,  an  accident  occurring  in  the  store  of  a  large 
advertiser  would  appear  in  print  as  happening  in  a 
"downtown"  department  store.  No  mention  of  a  par- 
ticular department  store,  adverse  in  its  nature,  was 
possible,  unless  the  article  first  secured  the  special 
O.  K.  of  the  business  manager. 

Mr.  Richard  Lloyd  Jones  declared  that  the  story 
of  the  struggle,  in  the  strike  of  the  miners  of  West- 
moreland County,  Pennsylvania,  had  been  "as  effec- 
tively suppressed  in  Pennsylvania's  'little  Russia'  as  it 
ever  could  have  been  under  the  Czar's  twin-headed 
black  eagle.  Not  a  daily  newspaper  in  Westmore- 
land County  has  reported  it."^ 

The  Associated  Press,  the  most  powerful  of  the 
news  agencies  in  this  country,  has  often  been  accused 
of  partiality.  Among  the  communications  recently 
presented  by  Senator  Owen  of  Oklahoma,  to  the  Sen- 
ate, in  his  petition  to  investigate  the  conditions  of  the 
strikers  in  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Works,  was  the  fol- 
lowing from  the  chairman  and  secretary  of  the  strik- 
ers' committee : 

'^The  Associated  Press  has  refused  to  print  prac- 
tically everything  relating  to  the  strike.  Either  Mr. 
Schwab  or  Mr.  Melville  E.  Stone  can  tell  you  the  rea- 

son."2 

In  substantiating  this  charge,  the  strikers  alleged 
that  this  agency  refused  to  transmit  over  its  wires  the 
written  charges  made  to  President  Taft  by  the  strik- 
ers, in  which  it  was  stated  that  the  Bethlehem  com- 
pany supplied  the  government  with  defective  steel.^ 
This  agency,  however,  usually  denies  indignantly  any 
unjust  discrimination.  Many  charges  are,  in  all  prob- 
ability, ill  founded. 

1  "Pennsylvania's  Russia,"  Jones,  Collier's,  April   i,  191 1. 

2  Presented  April  21,  1910.     Italics  are  the  author's. 

3  New  York  Call,  April  22,  1910. 


314  BOYCOTTS 

During  the  strike  of  the  marble  workers  in  New 
York  in  the  fall  of  191 1,  it  was  charged  by  the  strikers 
that  the  New  York  World  and  New  York  American 
had  refused,  after  the  first  few  days,  to  carry  their 
advertisement,  in  which  they  requested  marble  workers 
to  stay  away  from  the  city. 

Samuel  Gompers  recently  thus  summed  up  his  con- 
ception of  the  press's  present  hostility  to  labor : 

"With  all  means  of  collecting  and  disseminating  in- 
formation in  the  hands  of  the  'interests,*  how  can  the 
workers  get  a  square  deal?  The  press,  the  telegraph, 
the  telephone,  the  cable — all  are  under  corporation 
control  and  are  used  against  the  workers  in  their 
struggle  for  industrial  betterment."^ 

A  prominent  organizer  of  the  New  York  typo- 
graphical union  declared  to  the  writer,  a  short  time 
ago,  that  practically  all  of  the  non-labor  press  in  New 
York  had,  during  a  recent  strike,  refused  to  print  any- 
thing about  this  strike,  even  as  advertisements  for 
which  the  regular  charge  was  offered.  A  standard 
weekly  recently  lost  an  advertisement  worth  several 
thousand  dollars  a  year,  it  is  stated  on  good  authority, 
for  printing  an  article  favorable  to  the  workers,  dur- 
ing the  Lawrence  strike. 

Charges  of  a  similar  character,  some  well  founded 
and  others  without  sufficient  basis,  are  heard  constantly 
in  labor  circles,  especially  in  connection  with  the  re- 
cent West  Virginia  and  Paterson  strikes,  where  the 
authorities  went  so  far  as  to  confiscate  issues  of  the 
labor  press.  In  the  later  disturbance  a  labor  editor, 
Alex.  Scott,  was  arrested  for  criticizing  the  police  ad- 
ministration. 

This  suppression  of  news  is  likely  to  be  especially 
marked  during  the  reign  of  martial  law  in  a  community, 

*  Hearings  before  Sub-committee  on  Judiciary,  U.  S.  Senate,  H.  R. 
23635,  p.  15. 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         315 

as  a  result  of  the  press  censorship  which  is  frequently 
established.  Such  a  censorship  was  observed  during 
a  part  of  the  Colorado  disturbances,  when  the  com- 
manding officer  announced  that  no  reports  could  be 
sent  by  such  means  as  telegraph  and  telephone  without 
his  sanction.^  "By  Major  Hill's  order  the  office  of 
//  Lavatore  Italiano  was  seized,  and  a  week's  edition 
of  the  paper  was  confiscated.  This  edition  contained 
a  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  recent  district  con- 
vention," etc. 

The  miners  declared  that  the  reports  were  doctored 
in  very  many  instances,  and  there  was  probably  much 
justification  for  this  accusation. 

While  there  are  these  tendencies  toward  ignoring 
or  misrepresenting  the  worker,  it  must  also  be  stated 
that  in  the  final  analysis  a  newspaper  succeeds  in  pro- 
portion as  it  interests  large  numbers  of  the  public  in 
its  columns,  and  that,  if  a  paper  has  the  reputation  of 
being  absolutely  unfair,  its  circulation  is  likely  to  de- 
crease, and,  with  this  decrease,  its  value  as  an  adver- 
tising medium  becomes  less.  There  are  undoubtedly 
tendencies  at  work  which  make  for  fairness  as  well  as 
for  unfairness.  At  the  present  time,  however,  the 
anti-labor  forces  seem,  in  very  many  instances,  to  have 
the  stronger  pull. 


Free  Speech 

In  quite  a  number  of  cases,  the  workers  have  ex- 
perienced difficulty  in  reaching  their  fellow  workers 
and  the  public  with  oral  messages.  Frequently  open- 
air  speaking  has  been  suppressed,  while  the  strikers 
have  been  denied  halls  in  which  to  air  their  griev- 
ances. The  fight  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
organizers  at  Vandergrift,  Pa.,  is  illustrative: 

^  Labor  Disturbances  in  Colorado,  pp.   199,  200,  350. 


3i6  BOYCOTTS 

"The  A.  F.  of  L.  organizer,  A.  E.  Holder,  and 
Robert  Edwards,  of  the  Amalgamated  Association  of 
Iron  and  Steel  Workers,  made  persistent  endeavors  to 
obtain  rooms  or  halls  in  which  to  hold  meetings  in  Van- 
dergrift.  Pa.,  but  were  unsuccessful.  Landlords  and 
agents  invariably  used  this  reply:  *I  should  be  glad  to 
rent  to  you,  but  I  do  not  dare.'  One  rnan,  Mr.  S.  J. 
Poole,  a  painter  and  decorator,  was  willing  to  allow 
the  use  of  a  part  of  his  storeroom,  but  was  prevented 
by  his  landlord,  who  held  him  to  the  strict  letter  of 
the  law  on  sub-tenants."^  • 

The  organizers  furthermore  declared  that  they  were 
driven  out  of  town  by  a  mob  controlled  by  the  offi- 
cers of  the  mills,  and  threatened  with  direful  injuries 
should  they  refuse. 

Less  consideration  than  usual  is  likely  to  be 
paid  to  the  right  of  free  speech,  as  far  as  the  worker 
is  concerned,  during  a  mihtary  regime.  Mr.  Owen 
R.  Lovejoy,  secretary  of  the  National  Child  Labor 
Association,  vividly  describes' the  denial  of  such  free- 
dom during  the  Lawrence  strike.  After  watching  the 
running  of  a  picket  out  of  the  mill  section,  "a  poorly 
clad,  shivering  little  man,"  by  the  militia,  Mr.  Love- 
joy  asked  the  soldiers  what  was  the  crime  of  which  the 
man  was  guilty. 

"Asking  some  one  not  to  work,  I  suppose,  or  call- 
ing him  a  scab.    He's  a  picket,"  was  the  response. 

"  'But,'  I  ventured,  'asking  a  man  not  to  work  and 
calling  him  a  scab  are  not  the  same,  are  they?' 

"  *Get  to  hell  out  of  here.  I  ain't  got  no  time  to 
chew  the  rag  with  you  fellows,'  the  soldier  said,  with 
an  ominous  gesture  that  indicated  that  the  resources  of 
the  great  state  of  Massachusetts  were  backing  him  in 
quelling  my  riot. 

"I  asked  another  lad  in  uniform,  'Don't  you  allow 

'  Report  of  A.  F.  of  L.  on  the  Steel  Trust,  presented  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  U.  S.  (1910),  p.  25. 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         317 

any  picketing  if  they  are  quiet  and  orderly  and  peace- 
able?' 

*'He  appeared  to  think  me  feeble  minded,  as  he 
sneeringly  replied,  'Not  a  damned  one,  not  if  we  see 
'em.'"i 

Mr.  Lovejoy  condemned  the  restriction  placed  on 
the  strikers  as  a  form  of  intimidation  the  effect  of 
which  was  to  ''whip  them  into  submission." 

The  fights  for  free  speech  in  Little  Falls,  New  York, 
when  Mayor  Lunn  and  Rev.  Robert  A.  Bakeman  were 
arrested  in  Clinton  Park,  while  quoting  Lincoln  and 
the  Bible,  in  Spokane,  Washington, ^  in  the  brutal  San 
Diego  fight,^  in  New  Castle,  Pennsylvania,*  in  Pater- 
son  and  West  Virginia  and  in  numerous  other  in- 
stances, may  be  mentioned. 

These  instances,  it  is  true,  are  somewhat  unusual, 
and,  excepting  in  the  mine  and  steel  disputes,  have  of 
late  been  noted  chiefly  in  connection  with  the  strikes 
conducted  by  the  I.  W.  W.  This  fact,  however,  by  no 
means  mitigates  the  evil. 

The  Pulpit 

The  church,  another  strong  agent  for  the  forming 
of  public  opinion,  has  often  been  accused  of  throwing 
its  weight  too  much  upon  the  side  of  the  employers. 
Especially  is  this  said  to  be  true  in  towns  which  are 
completely  dominated  by  one  or  two  industrial  in- 
terests. The  same  sort  of  influences  which  have 
too  often  surrounded  the  editors  and  the  judges 
envelop  the  clergy.  The  church  is  directly  supported, 
in  most  instances,  by  the  well-to-do  among  the  popu- 
lation. The  salary  of  the  minister  is  often  directly 
dependent  upon  the  contributions  of  the  employers  of 

1  "Right  of  Free  Speech  at  Lawrence,"  Survey,  March  9,  1912. 

2  International  Socialist  Review,  December,   1909,  February,  1910. 
^New  York  Call,  May  18,  1912. 

*  Ibid.,  May  14,  1910. 


3i8  BOYCOTTS 

labor,  the  largeness  of  these  contributions  depends 
upon  their  good  will,  and  their  good  will  is  influenced 
tremendously  by  the  kind  of  economic  teachings  which 
they  hear  expounded  from  the  pulpit.  Naturally  dur- 
ing a  strike  it  ill  pleases  the  employer  to  have  his  pol- 
icies denounced  and  the  demands  of  the  workers  ap- 
proved. The  writer  has  spoken  to  more  than  one  min- 
ister who  has  suffered  much  financially  because  of  their 
too  open  advocacy  of  the  workers. 

The  following,  describing  conditions  in  ^Pennsylvania 
among  the  steel  mills,  is  illustrative :  ^ 

"September  i6,  1909.  The  speaker  at  the  Apollo 
labor  meeting  on  this  date  was  the  Rev.  C.  Johnson,  a 
free  Methodist  minister  from  Leechburg,  who  con- 
sented to  address  the  meeting  on  the  invitation  of  A.  E. 
Holder,  A.  F.  of  L.  organizer. 

"September  17,  1909.  The  Rev.  Johnson's  relations 
in  the  Leechburg's  mills  and  his  church  members  in  the 
Leechburg  and  Vandergrift  mills  were  threatened  with 
discharge  if  the  pastor  again  dared  to  speak  on  the 
labor  movement  or  attended  meetings." 

Again  the  social  relations  of  the  average  minister 
are  such  as  unconsciously  to  influence  his  opinions  in 
favor  of  the  privileged  classes.  It  may  be  added,  in 
justice  to  the  clergy,  however,  that  a  growing  number 
throughout  the  nation  are  leaning  strongly  toward  the 
side  of  labor,  and  are  expressing  their  labor  sympa- 
thies more  and  more  freely. 

Governmental  Forces  and  the  Worker — The  Police 

Workers  often  find  that  not  only  the  forces  of  pub- 
lic opinion,  but  also  the  governmental  forces,  includ- 
ing the  police,  constabulary,  militia  and  courts,  are  fre- 
quently used  against  them  in  their  struggles,  in  a  most 

1  Statement  and  Evidence  against  the  U.  S.  Steel  Corporation  by 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  p.  26. 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         319 

unjust  manner.  The  police  of  the  city,  aided  often  by 
special  policemen,  have  many  times  been  brought  into 
the  dispute,  in  order  to  browbeat  the  workers.  Espe- 
cially is  this  the  case  when  the  strikers  are  foreigners. 
The  menacing  and  intimidating  attitude  of  the  spe- 
cial police,  many  of  whom  were  illegally  brought  into 
service,  during  the  strike  at  Little  Falls,  N.  Y.,  was 
recently  depicted  by  John  A.  Fitch,  associate  editor  of 
the  Survey,  in  an  open  letter  to  Commissioner  of  La- 
bor John  Williams. 

"I  found  large  numbers  of  special  policemen  and 
deputy  sheriffs  patroling  the  streets  in  the  neighbor- 
hood where  the  working  people  live.  The  regular 
police  force  of  Little  Falls  consists  of  six  officers.  The 
number  of  such  officers  now  patrohng  the  streets  is 
variously  estimated  at  from  six  to  ninety.  They  walk 
about  in  groups,  carrying  the  clubs  in  their  hands,  and 
their  attitude  toward  strikers  and  strangers  upon  the 
city  streets  is  constantly  menacing  and  evidently  de- 
signed to  intimidate.  It  is  alleged  that  most  of  the 
special  policemen  and  deputy  sheriffs  have  been  fur- 
nished by  the  Humphrey  Detective  Agency  of  Albany, 
and  that  a  majority  of  such  officers  have  been  procured 
not  only  from  outside  of  Herkimer  County,  but  from 
points  outside  of  the  State  of  New  York.  This,  if 
true,  is  in  violation  of  section  1845  ^^  ^^^  penal  law." 

Mr.  Fitch  tells  about  the  arrest  of  one  man  against 
whom  no  charge  had  been  made,  and  the  refusal  of 
the  authorities  to  allow  his  lawyer  to  have  any  access 
to  him.     He  continues : 

".  .  .  At  noon  of  the  day  of  arrest  a  policeman 
assaulted  a  workingman  upon  the  street,  striking  him 
with  his  club.  This  workman  was  not  a  striker.  He 
at  once  appealed  to  the  city  authorities  to  issue  a  war- 
rant for  the  arrest  of  the  policeman  who  struck  him, 
but  was  able  neither  to  procure  a  warrant  nor  redress 
of  any  kind.     On  the  same  evening  a  report,  which  I 


320  BOYCOTTS 

have  no  reason  to  disbelieve,  came  to  me  to  the  effect 
that  two  strike  leaders  and  a  boy  were  assaulted  by 
special  policemen  who  jumped  upon  them  from  a  dark 
passage  where  they  had  been  in  waiting.  According  to 
the  report,  all  three  were  beaten  by  the  policemen  with 
their  clubs."^ 

Undue  police  interference  against  the  strikers  has 
also  been  alleged  in  the  fights  against  the  Cleveland 
garment  manufacturers,^  the  Great  Southern  Lumber 
Co.,^  the  silk  mill  owners  of  Paterson,*  the  mine  own- 
ers of  Colorado,  the  mill  owners  of  Lawrence,^  and  a 
host  of  other  employers. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  the  strikers  are  of  the 
same  nationality  as  the  police,  and  strike-breakers  are 
of  another  nationality,  the  strikers  often  have  a  freer 
rein. 

Certain  excuses  will  undoubtedly  be  forthcoming  for 
the  conduct  of  the  police  in  these  conflicts.  While  the 
excuses  may  mitigate  the  offenses  of  the  authorities, 
they  can  not,  in  the  opinion  of  the  author,  exonerate 
them. 

The  State  Constabulary 

During  the  past  few  years  there  has  been  created  in 
Pennsylvania  what  is  known  as  the  state  constabulary. 
Workmen  declare  that  this  body  was  organized  at  the 
behest  of  the  *'coal  barons,'*  in  order  to  assist  in  the 
breaking  of  strikes.  The  constabulary  is  a  cross  be- 
tween the  local  police  and  the  state  militia.  Its  mem- 
bers are  generally  mounted  on  horseback  and  do  duty 
throughout  the  state.  They  are  to  be  found  wherever 
there  is  an  industrial  conflict.     Many  are  the  testi- 

1  Italics  are  the  author's. 

^  International  Socialist  Review,  September,   191 1. 

3  Coming  Nation,  November  23,  1912. 

^  Survey ,  A^tW  19,  1913. 

^  Ibid.,  December  7,  1912.  ' 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         321 

monies  that  they  have  done  effective  work  for  the  em- 
ployers. 

The  following  almost  unbelievable  tale  of  assault 
and  murder  was  told  a  few  years  ago  by  Mr.  Hugh 
Kelley,  chief  of  police  of  So.  Bethlehem,  Pa.,  before 
the  United  States  Investigating  Committee :  ^ 

''When  the  constabulary  arrived  here,  February  26, 
19 10,  neither  the  burgess  nor  myself,  as  chief  of  police, 
was  informed  of  their  arrival.  They  were  in  charge 
of  the  sheriff.  .  .  .  They  started  out  on  our  streets, 
beat  down  our  people  without  any  reason  whatever, 
and  they  shot  down  an  innocent  man,  Joseph  Zambo, 
who  .  .  .  was  in  the  Majestic  Hotel.  One  of  the 
troopers  rode  up  on  the  pavement  at  the  hotel  door 
and  fired  two  shots  into  the  barroom,  shooting  one  man 
in  the  mouth  and  another  (Zambo)  through  the  head, 
who  died  that  afternoon.  .  .  .  There  was  no  disturb- 
ance of  any  kind  at  this  hotel,  which  was  the  head- 
quarters for  those  who  were  conducting  the  strike.  .  .  . 
Troopers  went  into  the  houses  of  people  without  war- 
rant and  searched  the  inmates  and  drove  people  from 
their  doorsteps.  They  beat  an  old  man  at  least  sixty 
years  of  age.  Struck  him  with  a  riot  stick,  knocked 
him  down,  and  left  him  in  a  very  bad  condition.  This 
is  only  one  of  a  dozen  similar  cases." 

Michael  Lynch,  chief  of  police  from  March  15, 
19 10,  submitted  similar  evidence.  A  number  of  min- 
ers who  signed  themselves  "Citizens  of  Madison" 
sent  a  letter  to  State  Representative  James  H.  Maurer, 
February  22,  191 1,  in  which,  among  other  things,  they 
charged  the  constabulary  with  ruthlessly  destroying  on 
April  I,  1 9 10,  the  homes  of  some  of  the  strikers. 
They  averred: 

"The  coal  companies  got  a  lot  of  deputies  into  the 
field,  loaded  them  up  with  rifles,  revolvers  and  clubs, 

1  Abstract  from  U.  S.  Senate  Document,  No.  521,  Quoted  in  The 
Constabulary  of  Pennsylvania,  by  Charles  A.  Maurer.  Italics  are  the 
author's. 


322  BOYCOTTS 

made  them  drunk,  and  set  them  loose  on  the  people's 
houses,  and  they  got  orders  to  go  ahead  and  do  their 
worst.  .  .  .  They  started  by  smashing  the  furniture 
out  on  the  street,  and  God  help  the  man  or  woman 
who  protested  against  them."^  Much  more  is  recited 
of  similar  import. 

Many  advocates  of  the  constabulary  have,  on  the 
other  hand,  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  timely  ac- 
tion of  this  body  has  often  prevented  more  serious 
trouble.  While  this  is  sometimes  true,  its  anti-labor 
tendencies  have  been  marked. 


The  Militia 

In  a  few  labor  struggles  militia  men  have  proved 
the  bugbear  of  the  strikers.  In  many  cases  where 
they  have  appeared  on  the  scene,  it  is  charged  that 
law  and  order  was  being  maintained  without  them,  and 
that  the  primary  reason  for  urging  their  presence  was 
to  break  the  strike.  The  workmen,  it  is  claimed,  are 
rarely  consulted  before  the  troops  are  called  out.  A 
typical  example  is  that  of  the  Colorado  strike  of 
1904: 2 

"The  commission  appointed  by  the  governor  ar- 
rived in  Victor  on  the  night  of  September  3,  and  held 
a  conference  in  the  Bank  of  Victor  with  Mayor  F.  D. 
French,  Postmaster  F.  M.  Reardon,  and  other  leading 
citizens.  On  the  same  night  the  commission  went  to 
Cripple  Creek,  and  held  a  session  at  the  National 
Hotel,  which  was  attended  by  Mayor  W.  L.  Shockey, 
of  Cripple  Creek,  Sheriff  H.  M.  Robertson,  by  mem- 
bers of  the  Mine  Owners'  Association,  and  by  members 
of  the  Citizens'  Alliance,  hut  no  representatives  of  the 
miners'  union  were  examined  by  the  commission. 
Mayor  Shockey  refused  to  sign  a  telegraphic  request 

1  The  Constabulary  of  Pennsylvania,  by  Charles  A.  Maurer,  p.  8. 
^  Labor  Disturbances  in   Colorado,  pp.    175-178.     Italics   are   the 
author's. 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         323 

for  troops,  on  the  ground  that  no  violence  had  been 
committed  within  the  limits  of  Cripple  Creek,  but  he 
told  the  commissioners  that  he  believed  that  75%  of 
the  miners  In  the  district  were  ready  to  return  to  work 
If  they  should  be  assured  protection,  and  therefore  he 
favored  having  troops." 

The  troops  were  thereupon  ordered.  The  county 
commissioners  of  Teller  County  soon  Issued  a  state- 
ment alleging  that  there  was  no  excuse  for  sending 
the  mllltia,  and  asserting  that  In  their  belief  the  com- 
mission "was  not  sent  for  an  honest  purpose,  but  as  a 
cloak,  to  cause  the  people  of  the  state  of  Colorado  to 
believe  that  the  law  officers  of  Teller  County  were 
unable  to  handle  the  strike  situation." 

The  sheriff  afterward  testified  that  he  told  the  com- 
mission that  he  "had  the  situation  In  hand,  and  that 
there  was  no  occasion  for  the  mllltla." 

Even  Attorney  General  N.  C.  Miller,  who  was  in 
favor  of  the  ordering  of  troops,  when  asked  by  the 
Denver  Republican  reporter  if  there  was  much  dis- 
turbance in  the  district,  is  quoted  as  saying: 

"Disturbance?  I  should  say  not.  In  fact  it  was  the 
greatest  exhibition  of  peace  I  ever  saw.  Everybody 
must  have  been  'under  cover,'  for  the  streets  were  as 
quiet  as  on  Sunday  In  Denver.  But  this  Is  not  the  point. 
There  was  likely  to  be  trouble,  from  what  we  gathered 
from  those  summoned  before  us,  and  that  is  why  the 
troops  were  sent." 

Of  Pullman,  to  which  federal  troops  were  sent, 
July  4,  1894,  during  the  American  Railway  strike,  the 
government  commission  states:^ 

"It  is  evidence,  and  uncontradicted,  that  no  violence 
or  destruction  of  property  by  strikers  or  sympathizers 
took  place  at  Pullman,  and  that  until  July  3  no  ex- 

^  Report  Chicago  Strike  Commission,  p.  38. 


324  BOYCOTTS 

traordlnary  protection  was  had  from  the  police  or  mili- 
tary against  even  anticipated  disorder." 

The  same  testimony  is  given  in  a  number  of  other 
cases. 

After  the  troops  are  finally  landed  on  the  scenes  of 
the  strike,  their  influence,  labor  leaders  declare,  is  ex- 
erted in  favor  of  the  employing  class.  Even  the  mili- 
tia at  times  realize  the  role  they  are  playing.  Of 
Lawrence,  one  of  them  writes  :^  ^ 

"There  was  too  much  of  the  feeling  that  we  were 
fighting  on  the  side  of  the  mill  owners.  Our  orders  were 
to  guard  the  mill  and  the  mill  property  and  to  keep 
strikers  who  were  known  to  us  or  were  wearing  badges 
from  approaching  within  two  streets  of  the  mills.  .  .  . 
We  were  quartered  at  a  mill,  and  were  fighting  on  the 
side  of  the  mill  men  to  protect  them  from  the  violence 
of  the  enemy.  We  had  excellent  accommodations  at 
the  mill,  and  were  constantly  receiving  favors  from  the 
mill  men. 

"The  orders  to  allow  no  parades  or  gatherings  were 
rather  indefinite  and  were  interpreted  to  forbid  two 
men  from  standing  together  on  a  street  corner.  .  .  . 
Had  the  strikers  been  better  acquainted  with  their 
rights  as  American  citizens,  they  would  undoubtedly 
have  struggled  with  us  when  we  calmly  overrode  their 
rights  on  the  theory  that  the  strike  was  similar  to  a 
war.  ...  I  doubt  whether  any  ofiicer  of  the  militia 
was  particularly  interested  in  protecting  the  strikers. 
Nothing  was  said  to  us  about  their  rights,  and  no  sug- 
gestion was  handed  down  that  we  should  treat  both 
sides  fairly." 

The  statement  of  Owen  R.  Lovejoy,  previously 
quoted,  is  of  a  like  nature. 

The  denial  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  the  im- 
prisonment of  those  who  exercised  the  right  of  free 
speech  and  free  press,  the  confiscation  of  labor  papers, 

*"A  Militia  Man's  Experiences,"  Survey,  April  6,  1912. 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         325 

the  withdrawal  of  the  right  of  habeas  corpus,  and  the 
subversion  of  other  liberties  were  the  concomitants  of 
the  sending  in  of  the  militia  to  West  Virginia/  as  well 
as  to  Colorado.  The  ruthless  deportation  of  miners 
in  the  latter  state  was  another  result  of  the  use  of  the 
armed  forces  of  the  government.^ 

The  Courts 

There  is  practically  a  unanimity  of  opinion  in  labor 
circles  that  the  courts  have,  for  the  most  part,  been 
pitted  against  labor  in  Its  struggles.  Labor  injunc- 
tions, binding  the  workers  hand  and  foot,  have  been 
Issued,  strikers  have  been  fined  and  jailed  on  frivolous 
and  fictitious  charges,  juries  have  been  charged  In  a 
biased  manner,  and  jurymen  themselves  often  selected 
from  the  non-labor  groups.  These  are  some  of  the 
charges  brought  against  the  legal  procedure  of  the 
present  day.  In  times  of  labor  troubles. 

It  Is  true  that  the  judges,  by  the  very  nature  of  their 
profession,  are  inclined  to  the  conservative  side.  They 
seek  precedents,  and  many  of  the  principles  of  law 
which  they  apply,  following  the  doctrine  of  stare 
decisis,  are  principles  enunciated  years  ago  In  Eng- 
land and  America,  before  the  beginning  of  the  indus- 
trial revolution.  Although  England  has  discarded 
many  of  these  principles  long  since,  they  are  still  ap- 
plied by  the  courts  In  this  country. 

Many  of  the  judges  are  under  obligation  to  politi- 
cal bosses,  who,  in  turn,  represent  financial  interests 
perhaps  more  or  less  Involved  In  the  labor  disturb- 
ance.     Frequently  judges  have,  before   appointment, 

1  "Sweet  Land  of  Liberty,"  Michaelson,  Everybody's  Magazine, 
May,  1913. 

^  Labor  Disturbances  in  Colorado.  See  also  Conditions  in  the 
Paint  Creek  District,  West  Virginia.  Hearings  before  Com.  on 
Education  and  Labor,  U.  S.  Senate,  63d  Cong.,  ist  Session,  pursuant 
to  S.  Res.  37. 


326  BOYCOTTS 

been  attorneys  for  large  corporate  Interests,  or  are 
desirous,  after  leaving  the  bench,  of  securing  lucrative 
employment  from  such  interests.  Some  judges  are  on 
the  bench  as  a  result  of  the  influence  of  these  interests. 
Letters  similar  to  the  following,  dated  December  5, 
1902,  and  addressed  to  Governor  Wm.  A.  Stone  of 
Pennsylvania,  explain  the  reason  for  the  appointment 
of  some  judges:  ^ 

"My  Dear  Governor:  I  am  sure  yciu  will  pardon 
any  seeming  presumption  on  my  part  in  writing  you  on 
a  subject  in  which  both  personally  and  on  behalf  of  my 
company  I  am  greatly  Interested.  It  Is  to  urge  the 
appointment,  if  at  all  consistent,  of  Judge  Morrison, 
of  McKean,  to  the  Supreme  Court  bench,  vice  Mitchell, 
deceased.  Judge  Morrison's  character  for  ability  and 
integrity  needs  no  words  at  my  hands,  aside  from  these 
great  considerations,  his  familiarity  with  all  that  per- 
tains to  the  great  Industries  of  oil  and  gas  In  the  impor- 
tant relations  they  bear  to  the  interests  of  the  western 
part  of  the  State  make  him  especially  desirable  as  a 
member  of  the  court  from  that  section. 

"Hoping  that  it  may  prove  possible  for  you  to  favor- 
ably consider  Judge  Morrison's  appointment,  I  am, 
with  very  high  regard, 

"Sincerely  yours, 

"Jno.  D.  Archbgld." 
"Hon.  Wm.  A.  Stone, 
Harrlsburg,  Pa." 

The  social  environment  of  the  judge,  like  that  of 
the  preacher  and  the  editor,  also  tends  to  make  him 
more  conscious  of  the  rights  of  capital  than  of  those 
of  labor.  The  desire  of  support  at  the  polls  may,  at 
times,  however,  have  a  counteracting  Influence. 

The  life  of  the  judge,  furthermore,  is  likely  to  be  a 
busy  one,  at  least  during  his  hours  In  court.  In  the 
rush  of  business  a  typewritten  Injunction  order  pre- 

^  Hearst's  Magazine,  September,  1912. 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         327 

pared  in  the  office  of  a  friendly  fellow  lawyer,  attor- 
ney for  a  large  business  concern,  is  frequently  signed 
without  much  reflection,  even  though  its  terms  are 
sweeping,  and  though  it  might  be  the  means  of  break- 
ing the  strike.  The  preparation  of  the  Buck's  Stove 
injunction  order  in  the  office  of  the  plaintiff's  attor- 
neys has  elsewhere  been  referred  to.  At  times  judges  \ 
publicly  admit  such  facts. 

Judges  Scott  and  Farmer  in  the  Barnes  case  (Illi- 
nois, 1908),  for  instance,  declared  that  the  Injunction 
writ  was  "usually  drawn  in  the  words  of  the  solicitor 
for  the  complainant."  "It  is  fair  to  the  trial  judge  to 
say,  however,"  asserted  the  judge  in  a  Minnesota 
case  (Gray  v.  The  Building  Trades  Council,  1903), 
"that  the  order  was  drawn  by  plaintiff's  attorney,  as 
was  usual  in  such  cases." 

The  intimate  relations  between  the  employers  and 
the  judges,  the  district  attorneys,  etc.,  are  often  a  mat- 
ter of  justifiable  criticism.  The  following  observation 
of  John  A.  Fitch,  who  alleged  that  he  discovered  an 
employee  of  the  National  Erectors'  Association  In 
virtual  charge  of  the  entire  correspondence  of  the 
union  It  was  fighting,  during  the  trial  of  the  dyna- 
miters, is  in  point: 

"It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Erectors'  Associa- 
tion has  been  active  for  years  in  another  direction  than 
that  of  apprehending  criminals.  It  exists  for  the  pur- 
pose of  smashing  a  labor  union.  In  the  steel  industry 
proper  for  men  even  to  meet  together  means  discharge. 
The  structural  trade  has  not  swung  that  far  toward 
domination  by  the  employer  .  .  .  But  the  impro- 
priety of  permitting  an  agent  of  the  Erectors*  Associa- 
tion to  have  access  to  the  60,000  or  so  letters,  of  which 
evidently  the  vast  majority  had  to  do  with  the  legiti- 
mate activities  of  the  union,  since  only  a  few  hundred 
were  used  in  the  trial,  ought  to  he  obvious  to  any  oneJ'^ 

"^Survey,  v.  29,  p.  616,  February  i,  1913.     Italics  are  the  author's. 


328  BOYCOTTS 

The  employers'  ability  in  most  cases  to  hire  the  more 
astute  attorneys,  and  the  better  and  more  authoritative 
presence  of  the  employers  in  court,  often  place  the  em- 
ployees at  a  distinct  disadvantage  in  their  attempt,  dur- 
ing labor  disputes,  to  obtain  justice  from  courts. 

With  the  forces  of  public  opinion  fighting  the  battles 
of  the  employers,  with  the  press  and  pulpit  too  often 
muzzled,  and  the  powers  of  government — the  police, 
constabulary,  militia,  courts — used  at  the  behest  of 
the  master  class,  the  workers  claim  that /hey  are  often 
placed  at  a  grave  disadvantage,  and  should  surely  be 
equipped  with  effective  weapons  if  they  are  to  win 
against  the  forces  of  their  adversaries. 


Boycotting  as  a  Fundamental  Human  Right 

Still  an  additional  argument  which  labor  uses  In  its 
endeavor  to  legalize  the  boycott  is  that  boycotting  is 
a  fundamental  human  right  and  that  society  suffers 
whenever  a  fundamental  right  is  suppressed.  A  has 
the  right  to  deal  or  to  refuse  to  deal  with  B  for  any 
or  for  no  reason.  B  has  no  property  right  in  A's 
patronage,  and  therefore  cannot  be  wronged  when  that 
patronage  is  withheld  from  him.  If  this  is  true,  it  Is 
also  true  that  A  has  a  right  to  approach  C  and  to  per- 
suade C  to  withhold  his  patronage  from  B,  since  B 
has  no  greater  property  right  in  the  patronage  of  C 
than  he  has  In  that  of  A.  A  has  also  the  right  to 
cease  dealing  with  C,  If  he  continues  his  patronage  with 
B,  and  he  has  likewise  the  right  to  state  to  C  that  he 
will  cease  dealings  should  he  refuse  to  sever  his  rela- 
tions with  B — since  a  man  has  a  right  to  threaten  to 
do  that  which  he  has  a  right  to  do.  From  this  follows 
the  right  to  join  with  others  in  such  threats.  By  this 
course  of  reasoning,  the  primary,  the  secondary,  and 
that  form  of  the  compound  boycott  which  involves  a 


REASONS    FOR    LEGALIZING         329 

threat  to  boycott  are  all  declared  fundamental  rights. 
Mr.  Gompers  thus  states  the  case '} 

"Just  as  men  may  strike  for  any  reason,  or  without 
any  reason  at  all,  so  may  they  suspend  dealings  with 
merchants  or  others  for  any  reason  or  no  reason  at 
all.  .  .  .  You  may  threaten  to  take  your  custom  away 
from  them  and  assign  any  reason  you  choose.  They 
are  not  entitled  to  your  custom  as  a  matter  of  moral 
or  legal  right,  and  you  are  at  liberty  to  withdraw  and 
transfer  it  at  any  time  and  for  any  conceivable  reason. 
It  follows  beyond  all  question  that  you  have  a  perfect 
right  to  threaten  to  withdraw  your  custom.  The  prin- 
ciple is  the  same  whether  you  threaten  one  man  or  a 
hundred  men,  whether  you  are  alone  in  threatening 
the  withdrawal  of  your  custom  or  a  member  of  a  vast 
combination  of  people  acting  together  in  the  prem- 
ises. .  .   . 

''Men  have  a  right  to  do  business,  but  this  is  one 
half  of  the  truth.  The  men  with  whom  business  is  done 
have  a  right  to  withdraw  and  transfer  their  custom. 
This  is  the  other  half,  which  is  always  ignored  in  the 
anti-boycott  arguments.  .  .  .  Labor  has  a  right  to 
suspend  dealings  with  any  and  all  who  refuse  to  sup- 
port what  it  considers  its  legitimate  demands.  .  .  . 
Workmen  have  a  right  to  say  that  they  will  not  patron- 
ize those  who  are  unfriendly  to  them  and  those  who 
support  their  adversaries.  This  is  all  that  boycotting 
implies." 

1  Gompers,  "The  Boycott  as  a  Legitimate  Weapon,"  in  paper  writ- 
ten October,  1899. 


CHAPTER   XX 

POSSIBLE  RECOURSE  OF  LABOR  IF  PERMANENTLY 
DEPRIVED  OF  THE  BOYCOTT* 

Another  important  element  which  should  be  con- 
sidered by  those  opposing,  as  well  as  those  bespeaking 
the  legality  of  the  boycott,  is  the  possible  weapons  to 
which  labor  will  resort,  if  permanently  deprived  by 
law  of  the  opportunity  to  organize  their  purchasing 
power. 

Many  unionists  declare  that  they  will  not  be  de- 
prived of  the  use  of  this  labor  device,  that,  openly 
or  secretly,  they  will  employ  it  whenever  it  promises 
success.  The  negative  boycott — expressed  through 
the  union  label — is  advocated  as  a  substitute  by  some, 
political  action  presents  the  remedy  to  another  group, 
while  more  radical  tactics,  such  as  sabotage  and  vio- 
lence, as  well  as  fundamental  changes  in  the  forms  of 
trade  organizations — industrial  unionism  and  its  ac- 
companying principles — are  urged  by  others.  The  at- 
titude of  the  courts  toward  the  boycott  has  undoubtedly 
turned  greater  attention  to  each  of  these  substitutes. 
Concentration  on  some  of  these  weapons  is  undoubt- 
edly an  auspicious  sign  for  labor,  while  greater  em- 
phasis on  other  devices  presents  a  warning  which 
should  be  heeded.  Are  those  who  are  opposing  the 
boycotts,  in  their  endeavor  to  suppress  what  to  them 
seems  one  evil,  giving  an  undue  impetus  to  a  greater 
evil? 

330 


POSSIBLE  RECOURSE  OF  LABOR      331 

Secret  Practice 

In  some  cases  attempts  to  deprive  labor  of  the  boy- 
cott have  brought  forth  a  shout  of  defiance  from  the 
workers.  "This  fundamental  right  will  not  be 
snatched  from  out  our  grasp,"  many  labor  leaders 
declared  after  the  decision  in  the  Danbury  Hatters' 
case  and  the  injunctions  in  the  Buck's  Stove  case.  "We 
will  singly  and  in  combination  exercise  our  God-given 
privilege  of  refusing  to  patronize  'unfair'  goods."  A 
well-known  organizer  of  one  of  the  international 
unions  said  a  while  ago  to  the  writer: 

"The  law  might  prevent  the  most  timid  from  exer- 
cising the  boycott,  but  the  more  militant  will  go  ahead, 
law  or  no  law.'* 

A  secretary  of  another  strong  International  union 
wrote : 

"The  question  of  what  the  unionists  will  resort  to 
if  deprived  permanently  of  the  right  to  boycott  is 
difficult  to  answer,  because  free  men  will  boycott  in 
future  as  they  have  done  in  the  past."  "I  don't  think 
that  labor  can  be  deprived  of  the  right  to  withhold  its 
patronage  from  any  firm,"  writes  another. 

Mr.  John  Mitchell  is  of  the  opinion  that  this  weapon 
will  still  be  used,  though  secretly  and  mahciously.  He 
declared; 

''//  an  attempt  is  made  to  render  the  boycott  illegal, 
as  has  already  been  done,  the  result  will  really  be  that 
the  boycott  or  the  concerted  refusal  to  purchase  goods 
at  a  certain  place  will  become  secret,  instead  of  open. 
The  only  safeguards  against  the  occasional  abuses  of 
the  boycott  are  openness  and  publicity,  and  if  the  law 
forces  the  boycott  to  become  irregular  and  secret,  it 
will  undoubtedly  he  used  to  serve  the  purpose  of  malice 
and  spite,  and  unscrupulous  employers  or  manufactur- 


332  BOYCOTTS 

ers  will  endeavor  to  use  secretly  this  formidable 
weapon  against  their  rivals  and  competitors.  The  en- 
deavor should  be  to  mitigate  any  possible  evils  with- 
out striking  at  the  roots  of  a  privilege  of  great  im- 
portance and  value  to  society."^ 

Mr.  Gompers  also  pronounced  it  a  fundamental 
right  of  which  labor  would  not  be  deprived.  The  evil 
social  effect  of  the  presence  on  the  statute  books  of 
unenforceable  and,  to  great  masses  of  th^  population, 
unjust  laws,  is  widely  acknowledged. 

Tlte  Union  Label  and  Trade  Union  Cooperatives 

Some  claim  that  ultimately  the  union  label  will  prove 
an  adequate  substitute  for  the  boycott.  This  is  the 
belief  of  Mr.  Thomas  Tracy,  secretary  of  the  Label 
Trades  Department,  as  well  as  of  some  eight  of  the 
secretaries  of  the  international  unions  and  some  of  the 
state  secretaries. 

The  following  are  a  few  statements  made  to  the 
author  : 

"The  union  label  is  gradually  taking  the  place  of  the 
boycott.  If  union  men  were  of  the  true  union  spirit, 
there  would  be  a  greater  demand  for  the  label,  and 
this  would  be  a  better  system  than  the  boycott." 

"When  the  union  label  comes  into  general  use  it 
will  obviate  the  necessity  of  a  boycott." 

Others  are  of  a  different  opinion.  This  is  from  a 
state  secretary  of  the  A.  F.  of  L. : 

"The  union  label  cannot  replace  other  lines  of 
activity.    Each  would  have  its  own  effect." 

"The  union  label,  in  my  opinion,  would  prove  a  poor 
substitute."     "It  is  not  a  substitute — it  is  an  advertise- 
ment."     "When    compared   to    independent    political 
action,  the  union  label  would  prove  a  poor  substitute." 
*  Mitchell,  Organized  Labor,  pp.  288,  289. 


POSSIBLE  RECOURSE  OF  LABOR      333 

Mr.  Gompers  also  believes  that  each  form  of  trade 
union  activity  has  its  own  particular  function  to  per- 
form, and  that  no  weapon  can  take  the  place  of  an- 
other of  which  labor  has  been  deprived.  It  is  doubt- 
less true,  nevertheless,  that,  since  the  unfavorable 
Buck's  Stove  and  Danbury  Hatters'  decisions,  much 
greater  emphasis  has  been  laid  on  the  use  of  the  label 
than  heretofore.  Yet  it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether 
the  admonition  to  trade  unionists  and  their  sympa- 
thizers to  purchase  only  union  goods  will  have  such 
an  immediate  and  vital  effect  on  the  sales  of  an  unfair 
firm  as  will  the  admonition  not  to  purchase  the  goods 
of  the  particular  firm. 

Another  interesting  substitute  suggested  to  take  the 
place  of  the  boycott,  though  one  which,  as  yet,  has  not 
obtained  any  large  degree  of  trade  union  support,  is  a 
trade  union  cooperative  society,  by  means  of  which  the 
label  may  be  properly  utilized.^  Trade  unions  only 
would  be  allowed  to  hold  stock  and  the  society  would 
be  governed  by  directors  representing  these  unions. 
The  establishment  of  the  society  would,  according  to 
its  originator,  lead  to  lower  prices  through  the  elimi- 
nation of  profits  and  the  waste  of  the  middlemen,  and 
would  also  insure  the  purchase  of  goods  made  by 
union  men.  His  plan  would  be  preferable  to  boycot- 
ting and  to  the  use  of  the  union  label,  as  at  present,  he 
declared,  because  union  men  could  purchase  union 
goods  without  "the  physical  weariness  and  vexation  of 
spirit  now  attending  the  search  for  such  articles,"  be- 
cause the  establishment  of  the  society  would  infringe 
no  law,  would  necessitate  no  large  expenditure  of 
money,  would  divert  to  the  unions  the  profits  now 
pouring  into  the  coffers  of  the  middlemen,  would  guar- 
antee the  trade  of  outsiders  desirous  of  obtaining  a 

1  The  idea  is  an  elaboration  of  the  label  shop,  and  is  proposed  by 
Mr.  Portenar.  Portenar,  Problems  of  Organized  Labor,  pp.  97 
et  seq. 


334  BOYCOTTS 

share  of  the  profits,  would  make  it  possible  to  sell  the 
best  goods,  on  account  of  the  extensiveness  of  the  pur- 
chasing market,  and  would  "bring  men  tumbling  into 
the  union  fold,"  as  their  employers  "must  have  union 
men  to  make  things  for  this  tremendous  market." 

Political  Action 

Deprived  of  the  use  of  the  boycott,  many  men  have 
recently  turned  to  political  action,  through  which  to 
secure  legislation  legalizing  the  boycott,  as  well  as  to 
reduce  the  hours  of  employment,  to  establish  a  min- 
imum wage  and  in  general  to  give  the  workers  a  more 
complete  control  of  their  industrial  life.  "Boycott  at 
the  Polls"  has  been  a  shibboleth  on  many  a  lip.  The 
following  jingle  expresses  the  sentiment  of  many:  ^ 

"For  the  betterment  of  labor 

Party  lines  should  be  erased; 
On  election  day  is  when  the 

Open-shoppers  should  be  chased. 
Injunction  judges  who  are  wont 

To  place  you  on  the  coals 
Will  have  their  fangs  extracted 

When  you  boycott  at  the  polls. 

It's  a  simple  proposition 

And  it  takes  but  little  time; 
You  need  levy  no  assessment, 

It  needn't  cost  a  single  dime. 
Cast  away  your  heavy  burdens 

And  obliterate  the  tolls 
Which  from  you  have  been  extracted — 

Learn  to  boycott  at  the  polls. 

You  can  make  the  workday  shorter 
And  increase  the  daily  wage 

*  Thomas   H.   West,   quoted  in  International   Woodcarver,  July, 


POSSIBLE  RECOURSE  OF  LABOR      335 

For  the  army  of  producers 

Who  in  honest  toil  engage. 
From  the  greed  of  sweatshop  herders 

You  can  save  unnumbered  souls. 
Real  prosperity  will  be  here 

When  you  boycott  at  the  polls." 

The  noteworthy  character  of  the  present  tendency 
warrants  a  rapid  survey  of  labor's  position  on  this 
subject.  For  many  years  after  the  formation  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  warned  by  the  unfor- 
tunate example  of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  this  organi- 
zation prohibited  the  discussion  of  politics  in  the 
unions.  In  1895  a  clause  was  placed  in  the  constitu- 
tion, to  the  effect  that  "party  politics,  whether  they  be 
Democratic,  Republican,  Socialist,  Populist,  Prohibi- 
tionist or  any  other,  shall  have  no  place  in  the  conven- 
tions of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor." 

In  1896  It  was  voted  that  "no  officer  of  the  A.  F. 
of  L.  shall  be  allowed  to  use  his  official  position  In  the 
Interest  of  either  political  party."  Mr.  Gompers 
stated,  in  defense  of  his  position.  In  the  1896  con- 
vention, that  his  single  purpose  was  "to  try  and  steer 
our  craft  of  trade  unionism  clear  from  the  shoals  and 
the  rocks  upon  which  so  many  of  labor's  previous 
efforts  were  wrecked.'* 

Conditions,  however,  changed.  The  lobbyists  of 
the  Federation,  without  representation  In  Congress, 
found  that  they  were,  in  many  cases,  powerless.  De- 
cisions of  the  various  state  and  federal  courts,  uphold- 
ing injunctions,  declaring  labor  laws  unconstitutional, 
came  thick  and  fast.  In  1906  the  Federation  decided 
to  make  a  stand  against  the  reelection  of  Congressman 
Charles  E.  Littlefield  of  Maine.  The  congressman, 
after  a  hard  fight,  was  reelected  by  a  small  plurality 
of  1,000,  his  previous  plurality  being  5,419.  He 
afterward  resigned.  The  Federation  was  encouraged. 
In  November,    1906,  six  union  men  were  elected  to 


336  BOYCOTTS 

Congress.  The  courts  continued  their  so-called  reac- 
tionary work.  On  January  6,  1908,  the  clause  of  the 
Erdman  Law  of  1898,  which  was  aimed  to  prevent 
discrimination  against  union  members,  was  declared 
unconstitutional.  On  January  23,  the  Employers'  Li- 
ability Law  of  1906,  making  employers  responsible 
for  accidents  to  employees,  regardless  of  carelessness, 
etc.,  suffered  the  same  fate. 

The  next  month,  on  February  3,  1908,  came  the 
famous  Danbury  Hatters'  decision,  in  thetboycott  case 
against  Loewe  &  Co.,  in  which  the  Supreme  Court  de- 
clared that  boycotting  could  be  punished  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law.  A  short 
time  prior  to  these  decisions,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
District  of  Columbia  issued  the  remarkable  Injunction 
in  the  Buck's  Stove  case  (December  18,  1907).  This 
was  made  permanent  in  March,  and  immediately  there- 
after contempt  proceedings  were  brought  against  the 
officers  of  the  American  Federation.  Then  it  was  that 
the  Federation  began  its  political  campaign  in  earnest, 
to  abolish  "government  by  injunction,"  to  secure  the 
repeal  or  amendment  of  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law, 
and  other  legislation.  The  new  shibboleth  was  no 
longer  "keep  politics  out  of  the  union,"  but  rather  the 
following: 

"We  now  call  upon  all  the  workers  of  our  common 
country  to  stand  faithfully  by  our  friends,  oppose  and 
defeat  our  enemies,  whether  they  be  candidates  for 
President,  for  Congress,  or  other  offices,  whether  ex- 
ecutive, legislative  or  judicial." 

In  the  ensuing  presidential  campaign  of  1908,  on 
account  of  the  more  favorable  anti-injunction  plank. 
President  Gompers  and  others  decided  to  throw  their 
weight  nationally  with  the  Democratic  party,  de- 
claring it  to  be  their  belief  "that  the  whole  mass 
of  workers  of  the  country  will  respond  in  hearty  sym- 


POSSIBLE  RECOURSE  OF  LABOR      337 

pathy  with  the  Democratic  party  In  the  coming  cam- 
paign, as  a  result  of  its  action  In  the  labor  plank  of 
the  platform."  Column  after  column  appeared  in  the 
American  Federationist  and  other  labor  papers  In  sup- 
port of  this  course,  and,  in  the  fall  of  1908,  some  ten 
union  card  men  were  elected  to  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. In  19 10  this  number  was  Increased  to 
fifteen.^ 

That  the  deprivation  of  the  boycott  has  been  one 
of  the  causes  of  this  trend,  and  that  such  political  ac- 
tivity has  but  only  just  begun,  is  the  opinion  of  many. 
A  secretary  of  one  of  the  International  unions  de- 
clared to  the  writer: 

"These  crushing  court  decisions,  depriving  labor  of 
the  right  to  boycott,  simply  mean  that  labor  will  It- 
self administer  government  affairs.  .  .  .  To  deprive 
labor  altogether  of  the  right  to  boycott  scab  goods  will 
but  hasten  the  day  when  political  action  is  the  only 
source  of  relief." 

Another  International  secretary  writes : 

"To  my  mind,  political  action  on  the  part  of  organ- 
ized labor  will  come,  and,  as  we  are  deprived  of  rights, 
each  one  will  hasten  the  day  of  political  action." 

A  third  states : 

"The  fight  against  the  boycott  has  resulted  now  In 
Increasing  the  belief  that  the  ballot,  properly  used,  is 
the  surest  way  to  correct  all  ills." 

Other  replies  from  International  secretaries  in  the 
same  vein  were : 

"Personally  I  believe  that  concerted  political  action 
would  be  the  only  effective  weapon  at  our  command. 
I  believe  that  90%   of  the  organized  wage  earners 

*  The  awakening  is,  in  some  respects,  similar  to  that  in  Eng- 
land following  the  adverse  Taff  Vale  decision.  In  that  country, 
however,  labor  turned  to  independent  political  action. 


338  BOYCOTTS 

would  support  it."  "Labor  will  enter  politics,  either 
to  elect  one  of  the  political  parties  or  become  social- 
istic." "Political  action  Is  coming."  "I  believe  that 
the  only  outcome  of  the  organized  labor  movement  Is 
certain  to  be  political  action.  It  is  the  only  road  left 
open  at  the  present  time.  ...  It  is  almost  impossible 
to  fight  a  vast  corporation,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  so 
strong  financially."  "Political  power  is  the  coming 
weapon.  We  will  make  our  political  master  give  us  a 
bigger  crumb,  but  we  are  going  after  the  whole 
loaf.  .  .  ."  "If  hampered  in  other  lawM  pursuits,  It 
will  force  political  action,  even  though  it  may  en- 
danger our  form  of  government."  "The  worker  will 
go  into  politics  until  he  makes  all  laws  and  appoint- 
ments, because  this  is  the  workingman's  country,  and 
he  is  going  to  control  his  own." 

The  declarations  of  a  number  of  secretaries  of  state 
federations  are: 

"The  other  weapons  act  only  as  immediate 
weapons  and  relief.  For  solution,  all  labor  will 
eventually  resort  to  concerted  political  action."  "The 
result  of  the  failures  of  the  boycott  in  various  in- 
stances Is  helping  the  Socialist  party  here  in  Texas, 
so  is  the  Hatters'  decision;  In  fact,  that  party  is  gain- 
ing rapidly  here  in  union  labor  circles.  Political  action 
Is  the  next  step."  "Labor  will  resort  to  the  ballot  In 
the  hands  of  an  Intelligent  labor  party."  "The  Illegal- 
ity of  the  boycott  would  hasten  concerted  political 
action." 

Whether  labor  will  continue  to  pursue  the  policy 
of  rewarding  its  friends  and  punishing  its  enemies, 
or  will  form  an  Independent  political  party,  or  join 
hands  with  the  Socialist  party,  is  a  question  which  is 
evoking  lively  discussion.  At  the  present  time  there 
is  little  talk  of  forming  an  independent  labor  party. 
The  two  contending  proposals  are  the  first  and  the 
third.    There  has  been  a  marked  tendency  toward  the 


POSSIBLE  RECOURSE  OF  LABOR      339 

Socialist  movement  on  the  part  of  many  members  of 
the  A.  F.  of  L.,  though  by  no  means  the  majority  of 
the  members,  during  the  past  few  years. 

"The  local  federations  of  the  unions  In  many  of  our 
leading  cities  have  declared  for  the  party,"  writes  Mr. 
Walling.^  He  asserts  that,  among  the  national  or- 
ganizations, the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  the 
Brewers,  the  Hat  and  Cap  Makers,  the  Bakers,  and  a 
few  others,  numbering  about  a  quarter  of  a  million, 
have  definitely  indorsed  Socialism,  while  the  coal  min- 
ers, numbering  300,000,  have  Indorsed  collective  own- 
ership, but  not  the  Socialist  party. 

A  few  years  ago  Mr.  John  C.  Kennedy  declared^ 
that  collective  ownership  and  operation  had  been  offi- 
cially Indorsed  by  a  number  of  the  international 
unions,  including  the  machinists,  patternmakers,  metal 
workers,  bollermakers  and  Iron  shipbuilders,  engi- 
neers, brewery  workers,  bakers  and  confectionery  work- 
ers, textile  workers,  ladies'  garment  workers,  boot  and 
shoe  workers,  cloth,  hat  and  cap  makers,  woodwork- 
ers, flint  glass  workers,  amalgamated  glass  workers, 
carriage  and  wagon  workers,  and  a  number  of  the 
western  unions,  including  the  miners,  totaling  in  mem- 
bership over  330,000.  He  estimated  that  about  one- 
third  of  the  cigarmakers  and  large  numbers  of  the 
printers  and  carpenters,  switchmen,  painters,  brick- 
layers, etc.,  were  Socialists,  and  named  over  a  dozen 
labor  papers  which  were  definitely  pledged  to  Social- 
ism, and  a  number  of  others  which  tended  strongly  that 
way.  The  president  of  the  International  Machinists' 
Union,  the  vice-president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers, 
and  numerous  other  leaders  are  ardent  advocates  of 
Industrial  democracy. 

The  growth  of  Socialist  sentiment  among  unionists 

^Walling,  Socialism  as  It  Is,  p.  351. 

2  "Socialistic  Tendencies  in  American  Trade  Unions,"  Journal  of 
Political  Economy,  v.  15,  pp.  470  et  seq. 


340  BOYCOTTS 

is  acknowledged  freely  by  both  supporters  and  op- 
posers  of  the  Socialist  movement.  "There  is  no  de- 
nying the  fact,"  declared  Secretary  of  Labor  Wilson, 
"that  there  is  a  great  and  growing  tendency  toward 
the  Socialist  party  among  the  rank  and  file,  although 
the  A.  F.  of  L.  has  officially  held  the  policy  of  re- 
warding its  friends  and  using  the  balance  of  power." 
At  the  191 2  election  the  insurgents  in  the  Federa- 
tion cast  5,073  votes  for  Max  Hayes  for  president  of 
the  body,  against  11,974  votes  for  Sam^iel  Gompers. 
The  questions  of  Socialism,  industrial  unionism  and 
Civic  Federationism  were  involved  in  the  election.  But 
whether  or  not  the  tendency  is  toward  Socialism,  it 
surely  is  toward  a  greater  participation  in  politics,  due, 
in  part,  at  least,  to  the  anti-boycott  decisions. 

Sabotage  and  the  I.  W,  W,  Tactics 

Another  form  of  union  activity  which  some  laborers 
are  resorting  to,  and  which  bids  fair  to  gain  in  popu- 
larity as  less  radical  measures  are  denied  them,  is 
sabotage.  Some  have  defined  this  word  as  an  "unfair 
day's  work  for  an  unfair  day's  pay,"  a  necessary  corol- 
lary of  the  trade  union  motto  of  a  "fair  day's  work 
for  a  fair  day's  pay."  It  has  also  been  defined  as  the 
"chloroforming  of  machinery."  These  definitions  in- 
dicate two  varieties  of  sabotage.  When  the  workers 
are  still  employed,  the  first  form  mentioned  operates 
to  reduce  the  industrial  output,  with  a  view  of  cutting 
down  the  employer's  profits.  During  a  strike  the  sec- 
ond variety  is  brought  into  play,  and  consists  chiefly 
in  the  temporary  derangement  of  machinery  so  as 
more  effectively  to  stop  production.  Misdirection  of 
orders  is  also  sometimes  included  in  the  definition  of 
this  word.  Arturo  Giovannitti  has  described  sabotage 
as  follows:^ 

^Sabotage,  by  Emile  Pouget,  with  introduction  by  Arturo  Gio- 
vannitti, pp.  13-14. 


POSSIBLE    RECOURSE    OF    LABOR    341 

"Any  conscious  or  wilful  act  on  the  part  of  one  or 
more  workers  intended  to  slacken  and  reduce  the  out- 
put of  production  in  the  industrial  field,  or  to  restrict 
trade  and  reduce  the  profits  in  the  commercial  field,  in 
order  to  secure  from  their  employers  better  conditions 
or  to  enforce  those  promised  or  maintain  those  already 
prevailing,  when  no  other  way  of  redress  is  open. 

"Any  skilful  operation  on  the  machinery  of  pro- 
duction Intended  not  to  destroy  it  or  permanently 
render  it  defective,  but  only  to  disable  It  temporarily 
and  to  put  It  out  of  running  condition  in  order  to  make 
impossible  the  work  of  scabs  and  thus  to  secure  the 
complete  and  real  stoppage  of  work  during  a  strike." 

In  emphasizing  the  necessity  of  employing  this 
weapon,  Giovannitti  dwells  on  the  fact  that  boycotts 
and  other  devices  formerly  resorted  to  are  no  longer 
permitted  the  worker.     He  says: 

*'Now  that  the  bosses  have  succeeded  in  dealing  an 
almost  mortal  blow^  to  the  boycott,  now  that  picket  duty 
is  practically  outlawed,  free  speech  throttled,  free  as- 
semblage prohibited,  and  Injunctions  against  labor  are 
becoming  epidemic — Sabotage,  this  dark,  Invincible, 
terrible  Damocles'  sword  that  hangs  over  the  head  of 
the  master  class,  will  replace  all  the  confiscated  weap- 
ons and  ammunition  of  the  army  of  the  tollers.  And  It 
will  win,  for  It  Is  the  most  redoubtable  of  all,  except 
the  general  strike.  In  vain  may  the  bosses  get  an  In- 
junction against  the  strikers'  funds — Sabotage  will  get 
a  more  powerful  one  against  their  machinery.  In  vain 
may  they  invoke  old  laws  and  make  new  ones  against 
it — they  will  never  discover  It,  never  track  it  In  its  lair, 
never  run  It  to  the  ground,  for  no  laws  will  ever  make 
a  crime  of  the  'clumsiness  and  lack  of  skill'  of  a  'scab' 
who  bungles  his  work  or  'puts  on  the  bum'  a  machine 
he  'does  not  know  how  to  run.' 

"There  can  be  no  injunction  against  It.  No  police- 
man's club.     No  rifle.     No  prison  bars.     It  cannot  be 

*  Italics  are  the  author's. 


342  BOYCOTTS 

starved  into  submission.  It  cannot  be  discharged.  It 
cannot  be  blacklisted.  It  is  present  everywhere,  and 
everywhere  invisible,  like  the  airship  that  soars  high 
above  the  clouds  in  the  dead  of  night,  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  cannon  and  the  searchlight,  and  drops  the  dead- 
liest bombs  into  the  enemy's  own  encampment." 

The  other  militant  tactics  advocated  by  the  Indus- 
trial Workers  of  the  World,  on  the  ground  that 
milder  forms  of  activity  have  proved  ineffective, 
or  are  not  allowed  the  worker,  are  the  general  strike, 
mass  picketing,  the  misdirection  of  orders,  the  refusal 
to  make  or  enforce  time  contracts,  the  violation  of  op- 
pressive governmental  orders,  etc.  Vincent  St.  John, 
the  secretary  of  the  organization,  thus  describes  these 
tactics  in  part:^ 

"The  organization  does  not  allow  any  part  to  enter 
into  time  contracts  with  the  employers.  It  aims,  where 
strikes  are  used,  to  paralyze  all  branches  of  the  in- 
dustry involved,  when  the  employers  can  least  afford  a 
cessation  of  work — during  the  busy  season  and  when 
there  are  rush  orders  to  be  filled. 

"The  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  maintain 
that  nothing  will  be  conceded  by  the  employers  except 
that  which  we  have  power  to  take  and  hold  by  the 
strength  of  our  organization.  Therefore  we  seek  no 
agreements  with  the  employers. 

"Failing  to  force  concessions  from  the  employers  by 
the  strike,  work  is  resumed  and  'sabotage'  is  used  to 
force  the  employers  to  concede  the  demands  of  the 
workers. 

"During  the  strikes  the  works  are  closely  picketed, 
and  every  effort^  made  to  keep  the  employers  from 
getting  workers  into  the  shops.  All  supplies  are  cut 
off  from  strike-bound  shops.  All  shipments  are  re- 
fused or  missent,  delayed  and  lost  if  possible.     Strike 

]  The  I.  W.  W.,  by  Vincent  St.  John,  p.  17.  A  fuller  discussion  of 
this  subject  is  contained  in  Spargo's  Syndicalism.  Industrial  Union- 
ism, and  Sabotage,  Brboks'  American  Syndicalism,  Tridon's  The 
New  Unionism,  etc. 


POSSIBLE    RECOURSE    OF    LABOR    343 

breakers  are  also  isolated  to  the  full  extent  of  the 
power  of  the  organization.  Interference  by  the  gov- 
ernment is  resented  by  open  violation  of  the  govern- 
ment's orders,  going  to  jail  en  masse,  causing  expense 
to  the  tax  payers — which  are  but  another  name  for  the 
employing  class.  In  short,  the  I.  W.  W.  advocates  the 
use  of  militant  'direct  action'  tactics  to  the  full  extent 
of  our  power  to  make  good." 

It  is  also  frequently  charged  that  the  violence  re- 
cently uncovered  in  some  unions — notably  the  Bridge 
and  Structural  Iron  Workers — is,  in  part,  due  to  the 
hounding  of  their  union  by  court  injunctions  and  pro- 
ceedings, when  their  members  indulged  in  the  use  of 
milder  weapons  than  dynamiting. 

It  is  seen,  therefore,  that  the  suppression  of  the  boy- 
cott has  already  led,  in  some  instances,  to  Its  secret 
use,  and  that  it  has  given  an  impetus  on  the  eco- 
nomic field  to  such  milder  activities  as  the  negative 
boycott  and  cooperative  efforts,  as  well  as  the  more 
radical  proposals  of  sabotage  and  the  other  tactics 
advocated  by  the  I.  W.  W.  It  has  also  turned  the 
attention  of  labor  to  the  political  field. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

PROBABLE  OUTCOME  IF  THE  BOYCOTT  IS  LEGALIZED 

What  will  be  the  outcome  if  the  boycott  is  legal- 
ized? Will  the  use  of  this  weapon  be  subject  to  seri- 
ous abuse?  Will  such  abuse,  if  any,  increase  or  de- 
crease with  time?  Finally,  what  will  be  the  relative 
strength  of  the  forces  leading  to  its  legitimate  and  to 
its  wrongful  employment?  The  answers  to  these  ques- 
tions are  of  vital  importance  to  one  wishing  to  form  a 
correct  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  the  evils  arising 
from  the  boycott's  employment,  unrestricted  by  statute 
and  common  law,  will  counteract  the  possible  good. 

That  there  is  some  danger  of  abuse  in  this  practice 
is  admitted  by  many  of  the  leaders  of  labor,  though 
denied  by  others.  Mr.  Gompers  is  of  the  former 
group. 

"Everything  is  subject  to  abuse,"  he  said  to  the 
writer  some  time  ago,  "including  the  boycott.  The 
vote  is  subject  to  abuse,  and  yet  that  is  no  reason  why 
it  should  be  taken  away.  The  boycott  is  more  and 
more  being  safeguarded  from  such  abuse.  But,  even  if 
the  use  of  this  weapon  was  attended  by  more  abuse 
than  good,  I  still  would  claim  that  the  workers  had  the 
right  to  use  it." 

Mr.  John  Mitchell  seconds  this  statement: 

"The  .right  to  boycott,  like  the  right  to  strike  or 
lockout,  the  right  to  vote,  the  right  to  bear  arms,  the 
liberty  of  speech,  or  the  right  to  devise  one's  property 
as  one  wills,  is  subject  to  misuse,"  he  declared.   "There 

344 


PROBABLE  OUTCOME  IF  LEGALIZED  345 

can  be  no  personal  liberty  that  does  not,  at  some  time 
or  other,  lead  to  abuse,  and  cause  individual  hard- 
ship."i 

Most  of  the  labor  leaders  Interviewed,  however,  re- 
fused to  acknowledge  that  they  knew  of  any  individual 
cases  of  abuse.  Secretary  of  Labor  W.  P.  Wilson 
averred  that  he  had  never  yet  come  across  any  cases 
of  misuse.  He  denied  that  the  Danbury  Hatters*  boy- 
cott was  an  illustrative  example  of  abuse,  declaring 
that  the  strikers'  object  to  obtain  a  closed  shop  and 
thereby  maintain  good  labor  conditions  was  legitimate. 
Other  leaders  maintained  that  but  few,  if  any,  in- 
stances of  abuse  were  shown  in  the  other  great  boycott 
case,  against  the  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Co.,  and 
that,  for  the  most  part,  the  retailers  approached  were 
treated  most  courteously  by  the  unions.  These  re- 
tailers usually  knew  of  the  trouble  nearly  a  year  be- 
fore they  were  seen,  it  was  avowed.  The  causes  tend- 
ing to  justify  these  boycotts  have  been  dwelt  upon 
elsewhere. 

If  the  boycott  should  be  legalized.  It  Is  undoubtedly 
true  that  there  would  be  cases  of  abuse,  and  yet  the  ex- 
periences of  the  past  few  years  have  indicated  that 
this  abuse  would  probably  grow  less  and  less.  The 
convention  proceedings  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  strongly  support  this  assumption.  Here  a 
progressive  tendency  to  put  a  stop  to  abuses  and  to 
surround  the  employment  of  the  boycott  with  more 
effective  safeguards  is  plainly  shown.  Complaints  of 
extortion  and  violence  which  were  concomitants  of  the 
early  use  of  this  weapon  have  appeared  very  infre- 
quently during  the  past  few  years. 

The  leaders  of  the  unions  are  constantly  endeavor- 
ing to  prevent  the  abuse  of  this  weapon,  both  on 
grounds  of  morality  and  those  of  utility.     Mr.  John 

*  Mitchell,  Organised  Labor,  p.  286. 


346  BOYCOTTS 

Mitchell  thus  defines  what  he  considers  to  be  the  best 
policy  :^ 

"The  same  rules  that  apply  to  the  strike  should 
apply  to  a  boycott,  it  should  be  enforced  only  when  a 
real  necessity  exists  and  under  conditions  which  will 
promote  the  welfare  of  the  working  classes  and  of 
society  in  general.  The  morality  as  well  as  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  boycott  can  be  secured  only  by  limiting 
its  application  to  important  cases,  and  by  preventing 
its  abuse.  ...  As  a  general  rule,  the  further  the  boy- 
cott is  removed  from  the  original  offetider  the  less 
effective  it  becomes.  It  should  be  the  aim  of  the  union 
to  seek  and  not  to  force  the  alliance  of  the  public,  and 
to  render  the  boycott  as  direct  and  personal  as  pos- 
sible. .  .  .  Especial  care  .  .  .  should  be  used  in  the 
laying  of  a  secondary  boycott.  A  boycott  of  this  sort, 
that  is  extended  and  extended  from  a  central  point  like 
the  waves  made  by  a  pebble  thrown  into  a  still  pond, 
becomes  of  so  little  force  and  arouses  so  much  just 
antagonism  that  discredit  is  thrown  upon  the  original 
boycott,  which  in  itself  may  have  been  perfectly  just 
and  reasonable." 

Mr.  Gompers  thinks  that  the  legality  of  the  boycott 
will  not  result  to  any  great  extent  in  the  enlargement 
of  its  use,  but  rather  in  the  diminution. 

"In  my  opinion,"  he  declared  before  the  Industrial 
Commission,^  "as  these  legal  rights  are  recognized, 
.  .  .  the  less  often  will  they  be  resorted  to.  But  if 
they  try  to  outlaw  me  for  exercising  that  which  I  have  a 
legal  right  to  do,  to  exercise  my  function  and  duty,  it 
seems  that  it's  a  man's  nature  then  to  be  perverse  and 
to  say  that  that  is  the  time  that  I  am  going  to  do  it." 

The  unionists  are  generally  of  the  opinion  that  this 
weapon  should  be  applied  only  when  "every  other 
remedy  has  been  employed  without  result."^     "It  is  a 

1  Mitchell,  Labor  Problems,  pp.  288,  290. 
"Report  of  Industrial  Commission,  v.  7,  p.  638. 
*A.  F.  of  L.  Convention  Proceedings,  1909,  p.  282. 


PROBABLE  OUTCOME  IF  LEGALIZED  347 

drastic  remedy  and  should  only  be  resorted  to  when 
gentler  and  milder  means  have  failed,"  declared  The 
Boycotter  as  early  as  1885. 

Nor  do  we  notice  the  tyrannical  use  of  the  boycott 
in  those  states,  such  as  Montana,  California,  New 
York,  where  boycotting  has  been  pronounced  legal  in 
many  of  its  forms.  'T  do  not  think  there  has  been 
any  trouble  in  regard  to  this  matter  in  this  state," 
wrote  the  Commission  of  Labor  of  Montana,  June, 
19 13,  referring  to  this  weapon.  In  this  state,  as  is 
known,  a  most  advanced  position  has  been  taken.  In 
England  the  1906  legislation  virtually  legalized  the 
boycott.  J.  Keir  Hardie,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Labor  Party  in  Parliament,  declared  that  no  cases  of 
abuse  had  come  to  his  notice.  He  said  in  a  letter  to 
the  writer: 

"There  has  been  no  effect  one  way  or  the  other  aris- 
ing from  the  Trades  Dispute  Act  in  regard  to  the  boy- 
cott, that  is  to  say,  the  Trades  Unions  have  gone  on 
since  1906  exactly  as  they  have  been  doing  before.  If 
there  had  been  any  abuse  of  the  powers  conferred  by 
the  Act  on  Trades  Unions  the  matter  would  have  been 
sure  to  have  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  Parliament, 
but  the  fact  that  even  not  one  question  has  been  put 
upon  the  subject  affords  strong  proof  that  there  have 
been  no  abuses." 

For  the  diminution  of  these  abuses  we  need  not  de- 
pend entirely  upon  the  growing  sense  of  justice  on  the 
part  of  the  workers,  but  rather  upon  the  selfish  in- 
terest of  the  unionists.  In  fact,  the  main  reason  ad- 
vanced in  the  conventions  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.  against 
the  indorsement  of  boycotts,  without  thorough  inves- 
tigation, was  that  their  indiscriminate  use  would  de- 
feat the  ends  of  unionists  themselves. 

Such  a  use  often  seriously  injures  the  union 
men  employed  in  lines  of  work  dependent  for  their 
continuation  upon  the  sale   of  the  boycotted   article. 


348  BOYCOTTS 

The  recognition  of  this  fact  led  the  1898  convention 
to  vote  that  a  hearing  be  given  to  all  such  workers 
before  the  boycott  was  indorsed.^  In  case  the  injured 
body  of  unionists  can  prove  that  the  employment  of 
this  weapon  is  unjustifiable,  they  can  generally  be  de- 
pended upon  to  issue  an  effective  protest.  Thought- 
less boycotting,  furthermore,  leads  to  ineffectiveness. 
So  true  is  this  that  labor  has  more  and  more  concen- 
trated its  efforts  on  a  few  cases  where  most  glaring 
injustices  on  the  part  of  the  employers  wete  evidenced, 
ignoring  those  cases  where  the  rights  of  labor  were 
less  clear.  Unionists  have  come  to  agree  with  the 
New  York  Commissioner  of  Labor  that 

"When  the  pretended  leaders  of  the  movement  as- 
sume to  apply  the  boycott  indiscriminately,  foolishly 
and  maliciously,  it  will  result  in  complete  disaster  to 
the  movement  itself,"  and  that  "the  success  of  the  boy- 
cott depends  upon  the  question  whether  or  not  its  ad- 
vocates represent  the  opinions  of  a  majority  of  our 
citizens  and  thus  reflect  public  opinion.''^ 

As  the  commissioner  states,  the  boycott  is  more  suc- 
cessful, generally  speaking,  if  it  can  gain  the  good 
will  of  those  outside  of  the  organized  labor  move- 
ment, and  to  use  it  foolishly  often  alienates  the  sym- 
pathy and  support  of  the  outside  group.  In  fact,  it 
may  happen,  as  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Gray's  bakery  in 
New  York  in  the  eighties,  and  as  in  the  case  of  numer- 
ous firms  on  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list,  that  a 
boycott  may  bring  greatly  increased  business  to  the 
firm  attacked,  if  waged  without  what  non-unionists  con- 
sider justification. 

Furthermore,  with  the  growth  of  our  industrial  life, 
and  the  wide  distribution  of  the  products  of  our  in- 
dustries, in  different  parts  of  the  United  States,  boy- 

*  See  supra,  p.  iii, 

'New  York  Report  of  Statistics  of  Labor,  1885,  p.  352. 


PROBABLE  OUTCOME  IF  LEGALIZED  349 

cotting,  with  its  circularizing,  sending  of  delegates, 
purchasing  of  novelties,  etc.,  is  becoming  more  and 
more  expensive.  On  this  account  the  trade  unions  are 
becoming  ever  more  cautious  about  beginning  a  na- 
tional campaign,  and  are  realizing  that  they  must  have 
a  cause  which  will  bring  to  its  standard  enthusiastic 
support,  and  that  they  must  wage  their  battle  in  a 
way  that  will  not  alienate  large  numbers  of  their  fel- 
lows, if  the  results' obtained  are  to  justify  the  energy 
and  money  expended. 

The  workers  are  acknowledging  also,  with  Mr.  John 
Mitchell,  that  the  more  indirect  the  use  of  the  boycott 
the  less  effective  it  is.  It  is  thus  to  the  interest  of 
labor  to  limit  boycotting  to  the  more  direct  attacks, 
thus  decreasing  the  amount  of  injury  meted  out  to 
those  far  removed  from  the  original  dispute.  The 
disappearance  of  the  less  direct  forms  also  eliminates 
the  objection  frequently  raised  to  boycotting  that  it 
interferes  unduly  with  the  liberty  of  third  parties. 

It  may  finally  be  stated  that  many  of  the  abuses 
cited  as  following  in  the  wake  of  the  boycott  may  be 
reached  by  other  laws.  Threats  of  physical  violence, 
fraud,  misrepresentation,  extortion,  inducing  others  to 
break  contracts  under  certain  conditions,  all  are  ille- 
gal, irrespective  of  the  fact  that  they  are  connected 
with  boycotting,  and  the  legalization  of  the  right  to 
boycott  would  not  legalize  these  methods.  False  state- 
ments issued  in  circulars  would  also  be  subject  to  the 
law  of  libel.  Most  of  the  corruption  complained  of, 
as  well  as  the  injustice  to  the  workman,  is  alleged  in 
connection  with  the  enforcing  of  the  principle  of  the 
closed  shop,  a  subject  with  which  this  book  deals  only 
incidentally.^ 

1  For  fuller  discussion  of  this  objection,  see  Stockton,  The  Closed 
Shop  in  American  Trade  Unions,  pp.  175  et  seq.  Dr.  Stockton  main- 
tains that  most  of  the  injustice  complained  of  by  non-unionists  is 
in  evidence  only  when  the  union  is  a  closed  union,  and  that  such 
unions  are  but  rarely  found,  except  in  decaying  trades. 


350  BOYCOTTS 

Instead  of  opening  wide  the  gates  to  greater  brutal- 
ity, in  the  conduct  of  the  labor  war,  the  legalization  of 
the  boycott  is  likely  to  reduce  the  number  of  strikes 
and  to  lead  to  a  larger  number  of  trade  agreements. 
If  the  employer  knows  that  the  employees  can  cut  off 
his  sales,  by  the  use  of  this  weapon,  he  is  more  likely 
carefully  to  consider  their  demands.  Mr.  Gompers 
declared  before  the  Industrial  Commission  that  prior 
to  placing  the  names  of  firms  on  the  "We  Don't  Pat- 
ronize" list,  the  A.  F.  of  L.  endeavored  t©  settle  griev- 
ances between  firms  and  employees,  and  that,  to  avoid 
the  proposed  proscription,  one-third  of  the  firms 
settled.  Many  others  have  expressed  their  opinion  to 
the  writer  that  the  fear  of  the  boycott  would  undoubt- 
edly lead,  in  many  instances,  to  trade  agreements. 

It  is  thus  believed  that,  if  the  boycott  is  legalized, 
abuse  will  continuously  decrease.  The  fact  that  abuse 
leads  to  the  injury  of  fellow  unionists,  to  ineffective- 
ness in  the  use  of  this  weapon,  to  the  alienation  of 
public  sympathy,  to  the  depletion  of  union  funds — all 
make  it  to  the  advantage  of  union  men  to  employ  the 
boycott  with  the  utmost  care.  That  these  facts  are 
recognized  has  been  proved  many  times.  It  is  also 
recognized  that  many  evils  occasionally  accompanying 
the  abusive  employment  of  the  boycott  may  be  reached 
in  other  ways. 

In  view  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  boycott  in  many 
trades,  in  strengthening  the  hands  of  labor,  and  thus, 
indirectly,  in  advancing  social  welfare;  in  view  of  the 
weapons  which  are  constantly  being  brought  into  play 
against  the  laborer  in  his  struggles,  necessitating  the 
use  of  weapons  additional  to  the  strike  and  the  picket- 
ing; in  view  of  some  of  the  substitutes  which  may  be 
resorted  to  if  the  boycott  is  not  available;  in  view  of 
the  decreasing  likelihood  of  any  great  abuse  in  the 
employment  of  the  boycott,  and  the  laws  on  the  statute 
book  which  take  due  care  of  many  of  the  perversions 


PROBABLE  OUTCOME  IF  LEGALIZED  351 

complained  of;  and  in  view  of  the  greater  number  of 
peaceful  settlements  which  would  probably  result  from 
its  potential  use,  the  writer  is  in  favor  of  legalizing 
this  weapon.  By  this  he  means  that  neither  the  injunc- 
tion nor  the  civil  nor  criminal  process  should  be  em- 
ployed against  the  primary  or  the  secondary  boycott, 
nor  against  that  form  of  the  compound  boycott  which 
involves  only  the  threat  to  injure  the  business  of  an- 
other by  the  withdrawal  of  patronage  or  labor.  He, 
of  course,  would  not  include  in  this  exemption  the 
threat  of  actual  violence  to  person  and  property. 

In  advocating  this  legalization,  he  believes  that 
there  will  probably  be  some  abuses  in  the  employment 
of  the  boycott,  as  there  are  In  the  exercise  of  every 
right;  that  at  times  the  use  of  this  weapon  is  less 
effective  than  that  of  others  at  the  disposal  of  labor; 
but  that  such  abuse  and  such  occasional  ineffectiveness 
do  not  constitute  any  sufficient  argument  for  rendering 
the  boycott  illegal. 


APPENDIX 


J 


APPENDIX 

SUMMARY    AND    DIGEST    OF    DECISIONS    IN 
BOYCOTT   AND   ALLIED    CASES 
Note: 

Following  is  a  list  of  boycott,  blacklist  and  trade  boycott 
decisions  in  the  courts  of  last  appeal'  and  a  few  of  the  lower 
courts  in  the  various  states,  as  well  as  in  the  federal  courts. 
A  number  of  decisions  relating  to  picketing  and  to  the  closed 
shop,  involving  as  they  do  the  same  principles,  have  also  been 
cited. 

The  reader  is  referred  to  Chapter  III  for  an  analysis  of 
the  various  kinds  of  boycott.  It  may  here  be  noted  that 
persuasion  only  is  used  in  the  secondary  boycotts,  while  the 
compound  boycott  is  accompanied  by  threats  or  coercion,  the 
threats,  at  times,  however,  being  mere  threats  to  boycott. 

When  a  case  is  headed,  "Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott 
Involving  Patronage,"  it  signifies  that  third  parties  are  here 
induced  or  coerced  to  withdraw  their  patronage  or  business 
dealings  from  the  boycotted  firm.  When  a  case  is  headed, 
"Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen,"  it 
signifies  that  an  attempt  is  here  made  to  prevent  employees 
or  other  workmen  from  seeking  or  continuing  employment 
in  the  boycotted  concern. 

When  the  case  is  headed  "Labor  Boycott,"  it  signifies  that 
an  attempt  is  made  to  boycott  another  workman  for  which 
action  is  brought  by  such  workman.  The  nature  of  the  Trade 
boycott  and  blacklist  is  explained  in  Chapter  II.  As  a  gen- 
eral rule,  when  the  name  of  the  state  court  is  omitted,  the 
decision  is  that  of  the  court  of  last  appeal  in  the  state. 

A  number  of  abbreviations  have  been  made,  as  follows:    pi. 

355 


2^6  BOYCOTTS 

for  plaintiff;  def.  for  defendant;  rev.  for  revised;  St.  for 
statutes;  sec.  for  sections;  gen.  for  general;  chap,  for  chap- 
ter, etc. 

NEW    ENGLAND    STATES 

In  Connecticut,  Massachusetts  and  Vermont  various  forms 
of  boycotting  have  been  pronounced  illegal,  when  accompanied 
by  intimidation,  moral  or  otherwise.  No  decisions  bearing 
directly  on  boycotts  in  labor  disputes  have  been  given  in  the 
highest  courts  of  New  Hampshire,  Maine  ai^  Rhode  Island. 
Judging  from  the  decision  on  the  blacklist.  New  Hampshire 
would  probably  declare  boycotts  actionable,  especially  if  malice 
was  present.  There  is  a  possibility  that  boycotts  in  Maine  and 
Rhode  Island  would  be  considered  legal,  if  unaccompanied  by 
recognized  illegal  means. 

Connecticut 

Statutes  declare  labor  and  employers'  boycotts  illegal,  al- 
though the  word  is  not  used.  Courts  have  pronounced  both 
kinds  illegal  where  intimidation  is  used.  Threat  of  loss  of 
business  will  constitute  intimidation. 

Statutes:  Chap.  202,  Sec.  i.  Laws  of  1909,  act  entitled, 
"Intimidation  of  Employees,"  amending  Sec.  1296,  Gen.  St. 
1902.  Boycotts,  when  accompanied  by  intimidation,  illegal 
(word  "boycott"  not  used).  Persons  threatening,  or  using 
means  calculated  to  intimidate  any  one  to  do  or  abstain  from 
doing  any  legal  act,  or  injuring  or  threatening  to  injure  prop- 
erty with  intent  to  intimidate,  shall  be  fined  max.  of  $100  or 
imprisoned  max.  of  6  mos. 

State  v.  Glidden  (1887).  Criminal.  Compound  Boycott 
Involving  Patronage.  Extortion.  Illegal.  Boycott  of  news- 
paper concern  to  compel  discharge  of  non-union  men.  Defs. 
in  typographical  union  threatened  subscribers  with  withdrawal 
of  patronage  if  continued  purchasing  paper.  It  was  also 
alleged  that  they  demanded  of  pi.  $500  to  defray  expenses, 
and  distributed  boycotting  circulars.  Acts  held  illegal  under 
statute  against  intimidation  and  prima  facie  malicious.     Pri- 


APPENDIX  357 

mary  object  to  injure  property,  though  ultimate,  good;  also 
interference  with  liberty  to  carry  on  business  in  company's 
own  way.  Court  conceded  the  right  to  request  company  to 
discharge  workmen  and  employ  others  and  to  use  all  proper 
argument  in  support  of  request. 

State  V.  Stockford  (1904).  Criminal  action.  Compound 
Boycott.  Illegal.  I.  U.  of  New  Haven  and  Car  Drivers' 
Union,  defs.  Held  such  combination  to  ruin  business  illegal 
under  common  law  and  statutes;  words  or  acts  calculated  to 
cause  ordinary  person  to  fear  an  injury  to  his  person,  business 
or  property  are  equivalent  to  threats, 

March  v.  Bricklayers  and  Plasterers'  Union,  etc.  (1906). 
Compound  Boycott  Involving  Employees.  Extortion.  Illegal. 
Threats  made  to  union  boss  to  withdraw  labor  because  he 
secured  supplies  from  pL,  unless  pi.  paid  to  union  $100.  PL 
had  sold  supplies  to  unfair  boss.  Suit  for  recovery  of  fine 
successful. 

Wyeman  v.  Deady  (1906)  Civil  Action.  Compound  Labor 
Boycott.  Illegal.  PL,  a  painter,  sued  defs..  Painters'  Union 
of  Hartford  and  walking  delegates,  for  securing  their  dis- 
charge through  threats  against  employer.  PL  was  awarded 
$423,  in  lieu  of  salary  lost.  Held  malice  need  not  be  proved ; 
gist  of  action  not  conspiracy,  but  injury;  proof  that  union 
directed  or  approved  actions  would  warrant  exaction  of  puni- 
tive damages. 

Maine 

Labor  boycotts  involving  intimidation,  and  general  boycotts 
during  disputes  with  public  utility  corporations,  are  forbidden 
by  statutes  (word  "boycott"  not  used).  No  boycott  cases  in 
labor  disputes  have  as  yet  been  decided  by  highest  court. 
Trade  boycott  held  legal,  though  another,  involving  slander, 
illegal. 

Statutes:  Rev.  St.  1903,  Chap.  124,  Sec.  9.  Against  in- 
timidation of  person  to  do  or  abstain  from  doing  legal  act  in  dis- 
pute between  gas,  telephone,  telegraph,  electric  light,  electric 
power  or  railroad  and  employees.     Max.  punishment,  $300  or 


358  BOYCOTTS 

3  mos.  Chap.  127,  Sec.  21.  Against  intimidation  of  employees 
while  entering,  continuing  in,  or  leaving  employment.  Max. 
punishment,  $500,  or  2  yrs. 

Heywood  v.  Tillson  (1883).  Civil  Action.  Boycott  of 
Landlord  by  Employer.  Legal.  Def.  threatened  to  discharge 
workmen  renting  house  of  pi.  Held  no  contract  relations 
interfered  with;  employer  could  employ  whom  he  chose; 
threat  to  commit  injury  not  actionable,  malicious  motive  not 
making  act  illegal. 

Davis  V.  Starrett  (1903).  Action  for  Slander.  Illegal. 
Def.  accused  of  slandering  pi.  by  declaring  that  latter  was  the 
greatest  rumseller  in  Warren,  Me.  In  one  count  pi.  charged 
he  had  been  boycotted  as  a  result  of  report.  Held  boycotting 
does  not  necessarilv  involve  combination. 

Massachusetts 

Interference  with  employment  through  force,  etc.,  prohib- 
ited by  statute.  Most  of  the  boycott  cases  decided  by  courts 
dealt  with  the  withdrawal  or  coercion  of  labor.  Courts  have 
granted  injunctions  against  coercing  employees  to  quit  employ- 
ment, and  the  use  even  of  persuasion,  if  the  strike  is  over.  In 
one  case,  however,  an  injunction  was  denied  on  the  ground 
that  there  was  no  presumption  that  defendant  would,  in  the  fu- 
ture, join  in  similar  wrongful  acts. 

Courts  have  enjoined  unfair  lists,  and  declared  actionable 
efforts  to  secure  discharge  of  employees  under  contract.  Trade 
boycott  has  been  declared  actionable  and  a  certain  form  of 
blacklist,  not  enjoinable.  Doctrine  of  justifiable  cause  has 
latterly  been  applied. 

Statutes:  Rev.  Laws,  1902,  Chap.  106,  Sec.  11,  entitled 
"Intimidation."  Act  makes  illegal  interference  with  a  person's 
employment  by  force  and  intimidation. 

Commonwealth  v.  Hunt  (1842).  Criminal  Conspiracy. 
Involving  Labor  Boycott.  Legal.  Bootmakers  combined  and 
agreed  not  to  work  for  any  except  those  employing  members 
of   the  club.     They    furthermore   agreed   to   fine   those   who 


APPENDIX  359 

would  not  join  organization,  and  compelled  employer  to  dis- 
charge an  employee  who  would  not  pay  the  fine  imposed.  Court 
held  legal;  that  persons  may  combine  to  adopt  measures  hav- 
ing a  tendency  to  impoverish  another,  and  such  combination 
may  yet  be  legal  and  meritorious. 

Carew  v.  Rutherford  (1870).  To  Recover  Money.  Ex- 
tortion. Illegal.  Journeymen  Freestone  Cutters  threatened 
to  induce  workers  to  leave  employment  if  pi.  refused  to  pay  to 
the  association  $500  for  privilege  of  sending  work  to  be  done 
outside  of  the  state.  Held  extortion  and  illegal.  Court,  how- 
ever, pronounced  primary  boycott  legal,  declaring  it  no  crime 
for  a  combination  without  any  unlawful  object  to  agree  not 
to  work  for  or  deal  with  certain  men  or  classes. 

Walker  v.  Cronin  (1871).  Civil  Action.  Secondary  Boy- 
cott Involving  Patronage  and  Workmen.  Illegal.  Defs., 
among  other  things,  induced  manufacturer  of  shoes,  who 
agreed  to  make  shoes  from  material  supplied,  to  send  back 
material  to  pi.  They  induced  breaking  of  contract,  and  em- 
ployees to  leave.  Held  combination  maliciously  to  cause  a 
loss  to  another  is  illegal;  that  inducement  to  leave  employ- 
ment is  illegal,  if  there  exists  valid  contract  known  to  def. 

Sherry  v.  Perkins  (1888).  For  Injunction.  Compound 
Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  Lasters,  after  strike 
disturbances,  displayed  banners  reading,  "Lasters  are  required 
to  keep  away  from  Sherry's."  Held  this  was  a  continuing 
intimidation  to  workers,  a  private  nuisance,  and  could  be  en- 
joined. 

Worthington  v.  Waring  (1892).  For  Injunction.  Black- 
list. Not  Enjoinable.  Owners  of  Narragansett  Mills  in 
Fall  River  placed  strikers  on  blacklist,  agreed  not  to  employ 
those  belonging  to  a  trade  union,  and  sent  list  to  others.  Held, 
as  rights  involved  were  not  property  but  personal  rights,  no 
injunction  would  issue  to  enjoin  continuing  conspiracy  not  to 
employ  complainants,  although  action  for  damages  might  be 
brought  by  each  one  separately. 

Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896).  For  Injunction.  Compound 
Boycott   Involving  Workmen.      (Picketing.)      Illegal.     Two 


36o  BOYCOTTS 

persons  in  front  of  a  business  establishment  with  whom  work- 
ers were  on  strike  were  charged  with  intimidating  and  con- 
straining workers  and  prospective  workers.  Held,  that  injunc- 
tion would  issue  as  against  combination  to  injure  another  by  in- 
timidation, acts  not  constituting  lawful  competition.  Judge 
Holmes  delivered  a  strong  dissenting  opinion,  quoted  else- 
where. 

May  V.  Wood  (1898).  Civil  Action.  Induce  Master  to 
Discharge  Servant.  (Not  in  labor  dispute.)  Insufficient 
Averments.  Held  that  when  it  is  alleged,  that  false  and 
malicious  statements  were  made  to  discharge  servant,  it  is 
essential  that  these  should  be  substantially  set  out  in  declara- 
tion. Judge  Holmes,  in  dissenting  opinion,  declared  combina- 
tion illegal  if  injury  was  inflicted  through  malevolence,  and 
without  justifiable  cause,  even  though  only  means  was  per- 
suasion. 

Plant  V.  Woods  (1900).  For  Injunction.  Secondary  or 
Compound  Labor  Boycott.  Illegal.  Painters,  in  order  to 
induce  pis.  to  join  their  union  rather  than  to  remain  in  another 
organization,  requested  employer  to  discharge  pis.,  and  did 
not  deny  that  trouble  would  follow  in  case  of  failure  to  do  so. 
Held  illegal  to  threaten  interference  to  dispose  of  labor  with- 
out justifiable  cause.  Judge  Holmes,  dissenting,  stated  the 
immediate  object  here — to  strengthen  workers'  organization — 
was  justifiable,  and  that  it  was  lawful  to  combine  to  secure 
better  conditions,  although  at  the  expense  of  others,  and 
through  boycott  and  strike. 

Weston  V.  Barnicoat  (1900).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boy- 
cott. Illegal.  PL  declined  to  pay  an  alleged  debt,  whereupon 
his  name  was  sent  to  association,  which  placed  it  on  record, 
and  began  boycott.  Case  decided  on  technicalities.  Defs. 
held  responsible  for  action  of  association. 

Martell  v.  White  (1904).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott. 
Illegal.  Def.  granite  manufacturers  of  Quincy  formed  asso- 
ciation, one  of  whose  regulations  was  that  any  member  dealing 
with  non-member  manufacturer  should  be  subject  to  a  fine 
of  from  $1  to  $500.     Held  object  unjustifiable  and  that  the 


APPENDIX  361 

imposition  of  fines  constituted  coercion,  and  prevented  free 
competition. 

Berry  v.  Donovan  (1905).  Civil  Action.  Secondary  or 
Compound  Labor  Boycott.  Illegal.  Members  of  Shoemakers' 
Union  of  Haverhill  demanded  of  employer  to  discharge  non- 
union men.     Held  same  as  in  Plant  v.  Woods,  supra. 

Picket  V.  Walsh  (1906).  Injunction.  Involving  Compound 
Labor  Boycott.  Illegal.  Members  of  Bricklayers'  and  Stone- 
masons' Un''on  employed  by  a  contractor  aiding  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  Federal  Building,  Boston,  struck  against  con- 
tractor to  secure  his  influence  in  compelling  ow^ner  of  building 
to  discharge  jointer,  of  mortar,  and  employ  union  men.  Court 
held  such  jointer  could  obtain  injunction  restraining  such 
strike,  and  preventing  w^orkers  from  refusing  to  w^ork  on  other 
building,  in  pursuance  of  such  purpose,  such  strike  not  being 
a  justifiable  interference  with  right  of  pis.  to  pursue  calling 
as  they  saw  fit,  as  action  was  not  limited  to  strikes  against 
persons  with  whom  organization  had  trade  dispute. 

Reynolds  v.  Davis  (1908).  Strike  Involving  Unfair  List. 
Illegal.  Here  Building  Trades'  Council  declared  strike.  Held 
grievance  was  between  employer  and  individual  employees,  and 
that  it  was  illegal  for  an  outside  body  not  under  contract  to 
call  strike,  and  thus  that  any  acts  in  pursuance  of  said  illegal 
strike,  including  putting  of  pi.  on  unfair  list,  were  also  illegal. 

Willcutt  &  Sons  Co.  V.  Bricklayers'  Benevolent  and  Pro- 
tective Union  (1908).  For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott 
Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  Bricklayers  on  strike  at  Fair- 
haven  and  Andover  endeavored  to  prevent  members  of  union 
from  entering  and  continuing  in  pl.'s  employment  through 
fines  and  threats.  Held  means  coercive,  and  injunction  would 
issue.     Judges  Sheldon  and  Knowlton  dissented. 

M.  Steinert  &  Sons  Co.  v.  Tagan  (1911).  Secondary  Boy- 
cott Involving  Employees.  Illegal.  Teamsters  drove 
through  streets  of  Boston  with  wagon  bearing  placard  an- 
nouncing strike  of  piano  and  furniture  movers  four  months 
after  contest  was  apparently  over.  Held  that  while  action 
would  be  legal  during  strike,  in  view  of  the  Statute  passed 


362  BOYCOTTS 

1 910,  Chap.  445,  imposing  duty  on  employer  to  give  informa- 
tion about  a  strike  to  prospective  employees,  such  action,  after 
strike,  was  malicious. 

Davis  V.  N.  E.  Railway  Co.  (1909)-  For  Injunction. 
Blacklist.  (Not  in  labor  dispute.)  Illegal.  Defs.,  publishers 
of  a  directory  purporting  to  contain  a  full  list  of  reputable 
express  companies,  refused  to  list  pis.  Held  to  be  an  inten- 
tional act  of  injury  without  justifiable  excuse. 

Aberthaw  Construction  Co.  v.  Cameron  (1907).  For  In- 
junction. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Not  En- 
joinable.  No  injunction  will  be  granted  to  prevent  defs.  from 
compelling  discharge  of  non-union  workmen  through  a  viola- 
tion of  the  contract,  if  pi.,  in  performance  of  contract,  chooses 
to  employ  non-union  men.  No  presumption  that  def.  will 
engage  in  similar  wrongful  acts  in  future,  and,  if  he  does  so, 
must  be  pleaded  and  proved. 

New    Hampshire 

Sweeping  statute  against  boycotts  (word  "boycott"  not 
used).  No  case  in  labor  disputes  decided  on  by  highest  court. 
Decision  in  case  involving  a  form  of  blacklist  would  indicate 
that  boycotts  would  be  considered  actionable  if  court  concluded 
malice  was  shown. 

Statutes:  Pub.  St.  (1891),  Chap.  266,  Sec.  12.  "Inter- 
ference with  Employment."  Act  makes  it  unlawful  for  any 
person  to  interfere  in  any  way  whatever  to  injure  or  damage 
another  in  property  or  lawful  business.  Max.  punishment 
$5(X)  or  I  yr.     Covers  boycott. 

Bixby  v.  Dunlap  (1876).  Civil  Action.  Held  illegal 
knowingly  and  wilfully  to  induce  servant  to  break  his  con- 
tract. 

Huskie  v.  Griffin  (1909).  Civil  Action.  Nature  of  Black- 
list. Left  to  Jury.  Former  employer  induced  another  to 
refuse  to  employ  pi.  Held  any  injury  to  a  lawful  business 
was  prima  facie  actionable,  but  might  be  justified  on  ground 
that  it  was  a  lawful  effort  to  promote  one's  own  welfare,  to 


APPENDIX  363 

defeat  which  plea  express  malice  or  purpose  to  injure  others 
and  not  to  benefit  oneself  must  be  shown. 

Rhode    Island 

Labor  boycott  accompanied  by  intimidation,  and  general  boy- 
cotts accompanied  by  malice,  illegal  by  statute  (word  "boycott" 
not  used).  No  case  of  boycott  in  labor  disputes  decided  by 
highest  court.  Application  to  labor  disputes  of  principles  laid 
down  in  trade  boycott  case  would  legalize  latter  boycotts,  if 
so-called  coercive  measures  were  confined  to  notification  of 
third  party  that  loss  would  follow  refusal  to  cease  relations 
with  boycotted  firm. 

Statute:  Gen.  Laws,  1896,  Chap.  278,  Sec.  8,  "Intimida- 
tion of  Employees."  Intimidating  employees,  singly  or  by 
combination,  from  entering  on  or  pursuing  employment  illegal. 
Max.  punishment,  $100  or  90  days.  Chap.  279,  Sec.  45,  "In- 
terference with  Employment."  Unlawful  for  any  one,  mali- 
ciously, wilfully,  or  mischievously,  to  injure  or  destroy  prop- 
erty, or  obstruct  lawful  business.  Max.  punishment,  $20  or 
3  mos. 

Macauley  v.  Tierney  (1895).  For  Injunction.  Compound 
Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  Master  Plumbers*  Ass'n  of  Provi- 
dence, affiliated  with  national  body,  agreed  not  to  purchase 
supplies  from  any  wholesalers  who  sold  to  plumbers  not  mem- 
bers of  association,  and  notified  certain  wholesalers,  as  well  as 
members  of  the  association,  to  that  effect.  Held  sending  of 
notices  is  no  ground  for  injunction;  that  members'  desire  to  free 
themselves  from  competition  is  a  legal  excuse  for  the  sending 
of  notices  and  that  combination  to  do  act  which  one  person 
may  lawfully  do  is  legal,  if  no  illegal  means  used,  such  as 
fraud,  misrepresentation,  intimidation,  coercion,  obstruction, 
molestation,  or  procuring  violation  of  contract. 

Vermont 

Labor  boycotts  when  accompanied  by  intimidation  illegal 
by  statute  (word  "boycott"  not  used).     Labor  boycotts,  where 


364  BOYCOTTS 

employees  use  intimidating  measures,  moral  or  otherwise,  have 
been  three  times  declared  criminal.  However,  where  employer 
used  coercive  measures  against  employee  of  employee,  court 
held  it  was  not  actionable.  Court  also  held  trade  union  funds 
liable  for  acts  of  agents  in  boycott  against  employees  and  those 
dealing  with  them,  as  well  as  a  trade  boycott,  where  members 
of  boycotting  association  were  coerced  by  means  of  fines. 

Statutes:  Pub.  St.  1906,  Sec.  5868  and  5869,  "Intimida- 
tion of  Employees."  Sec.  5868  makes  it  illegal  to  prevent 
employment  by  threatening  violence.  Max.  punishment,  $100 
or  3  mos.  Sec.  5869  makes  illegal  stopping  by  force,  etc.,  one 
already  at  work.  Max.  punishment,  $500  or  5  yrs.  Covers 
boycotts  by  means  of  coercing  employees. 

State  v.  Stewart  (1887).  Criminal  Conspiracy.  Com- 
pound Labor  Boycott.  Illegal.  Defs.,  granite  cutters,  charged 
with  using  threats  to  drive  employees  from  positions,  and  with 
threatening  to  publish  names  as  scabs.  Held  that  acts  deprived 
employees  of  the  right  to  use  their  talents  as  they  saw  fit,  and 
that  threats  working  on  the  mind  are  as  illegal  as  actual  vio- 
lence. 

State  V.  Dyer  (1894).  Criminal  Conspiracy.  Compound 
Labor  Boycott  Illegal.  Facts  and  decision  similar  to  State  v. 
Stewart.  Defs.,  granite  cutters  of  Montpelier  and  Barre;  ob- 
ject of  boycott  to  compel  member  to  join  union. 

Boutwell  et  al.  v.  Marr  ^^  al.  (1899).  Civil  Action.  Trade 
Boycott.  Illegal.  Granite  Manufacturers'  Ass'n  of  New 
England,  embracing  95  per  cent,  of  granite  manufacturers  in 
that  vicinity,  refused  to  furnish  granite  to  any  firm  not  a  mem- 
ber. PL's  business  decreased  from  $1,000  to  nothing  a  month. 
Held  that  when  the  concerted  action  to  withdraw  patronage  is 
brought  about  by  coercion,  such  as  the  imposition  of  fines,  the 
combination  will  be  considered  illegal,  and  that  acts  legal 
when  done  by  individuals  are  not  always  legal  when  in  com- 
bination. 

Patch  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Protection  Lodge,  etc.  (1905).  Civil 
Action.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Employees  and  Patron- 
age.    Illegal.    Machinists  in  Rutland,  on  strike,  threatened  to 


APPENDIX  365 

boycott  any  one  boarding  or  selling  necessities  to  any  servant 
employed  by  pi.,  and  distributed  circulars  to  machine  shops. 
Jury  awarded  $25,CKX>  damages.  One  of  first  instances  where 
members  of  trade  union  were  held  liable  in  boycott  case. 

Raycroft  v.  Tainter  (1896).  Civil  Action.  Form  of  Black- 
list. Legal.  Employer  of  servant  threatened  servant  with 
discharge  if  he  did  not  discharge  third  person  employed  by  ser- 
vant against  whom  employer  had  a  grudge.  Held  def.  was 
exercising  a  legal  right,  and  that  malicious  motive  was  imma- 
terial. 

State  V.  Duncan  (1906).  Criminal  Conspiracy.  Com- 
pound Labor  Boycott.  Held  conspiracy  to  prevent  persons  by 
violence,  etc.,  from  engaging  in  a  lawful  business  illegal  at 
common  law  and  under  statutes.  Decision  chiefly  on  techni- 
cality. 

THE   MIDDLE   ATLANTIC   STATES 

The  highest  court  in  Delaware  has  not  passed  on  the  ques- 
tion of  boycotts  in  labor  disputes.  In  Maryland,  New  Jersey 
and  Pennsylvania,  boycotts,  accompanied  by  threats  of  loss  of 
business  or  labor  made  against  third  parties,  have  been  held 
illegal.  In  New  Jersey,  mere  persuasion,  when  used  to  force 
another  to  conduct  his  business  in  a  different  way,  had  been 
held  illegal.  In  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania,  however,  circu- 
lars publishing  a  truthful  account  of  grievances  have  not  been 
enjoined. 

New  York  is  the  most  liberal  of  this  group  of  states,  and 
the  courts  here  consider  a  secondary  boycott,  unaccompanied 
by  force,  etc.,  legal;  allow  issuance  of  boycott  circulars,  tv^en 
when  loss  of  business  by  third  parties  is  implied;  and  declare 
labor  boycotts  legal  when  enforced  by  strikes  or  threatened 
strikes,  and  when  they  do  not  result  in  the  exclusion  of  the 
boycotted  laborer  from  all  positions  in  the  community. 

Delaware 

No  boycott  decision  noted  in  highest  court.  Statutes:  Rev. 
Code,    1893,    Chap.    127,    Sec.   3,    entitled    "Interfering  with 


2^66  BOYCOTTS 

Employee."  Act  makes  misdemeanor  the  interference  with, 
molesting  or  obstructing  any  railroad  employee  in  pursuance 
of  a  strike.     Max.  fine,  $500  and  6  mos. 


Maryland 

Statute  legalizes  boycott  when  unattended  by  coercion  or 
other  illegal  means.  Court  has  declared  illegal  coercion  of 
patrons  by  means  of  threats  to  withdraw  customers,  and  has 
issued  an  injunction.  It  has,  however,  pronounced  legal  the 
issuance  of  circulars  presenting  the  claims  of  the  workers.  A 
trade  boycott,  accompanied  by  threats,  in  inducing  others  to 
break  a  contract,  was  also  held  to  be  illegal,  while  in  an  early 
case,  even  threats  to  notify  others  of  "unfairness"  of  shop,  were 
pronounced  actionable.  An  attempt  at  blacklisting,  involving 
false  statement,  also  illegal. 

Statutes:  Pub.  Laws,  1903,  Art.  27,  Sec.  33,  act  entitled 
"Labor  Combinations  not  Unlawful."  Agreement  to  do  act 
in  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute  between  employer  and  em- 
ployee not  indictable  as  conspiracy  if  such  act,  committed  by 
one  person,  not  punishable. 

Lucke  V.  Clothing  Cutters',  etc..  Assembly  (1893).  Civil 
Action.  Labor  Boycott.  Illegal.  Members  of  the  Knights 
of  Labor  notified  Baltimore  clothing  cutter  that  labor  unions 
would  be  informed  that  shop  was  non-union  if  pi.  was  not  dis- 
charged. This  action  held  malicious  interference  with  right  of 
employment. 

My  Maryland  Lodge  No.  186,  Intern'l  Ass'n.  Machinists, 
et  al.j  V.  Adt.  (1905).  For  injunction.  Compound  Boycott 
Involving  Patronage.  Illegal.  Defs.  struck  for  10  per  cent, 
increase  in  wages.  They  followed  wagons  of  pi.  to  discover 
customers;  threatened  customers,  boycotted  beer  and  ice  of 
those  hiring  pi.,  issued  circulars,  and  caused  dwindling  of 
business  from  $18,000  to  $3,500.  A  temporary  injunction 
was  issued  by  the  lower  court  forbidding  defs.  from  continu- 
ing these  practices  and  from  in  any  manner  boycotting  pi.  or 
any  one  giving  him  work.     Injunction  upheld;    and  declara- 


APPENDIX  367 

tion  made  that,  while  defs.  had  a  right  to  present  cause  to  the 
public  in  a  peaceful  way  through  the  newspapers  or  circulars, 
they  could  not  use  coercion,  and  that  acts  v>^ere  not  lawful 
competition  in  trade. 

Sumwalt  Ice  Co.  v.  Knickerbocker  Ice  Co.  of  Baltimore 
(191 1 ).  Civil  Action.  Compound.  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal. 
PL,  dealer  in  ice,  was  threatened  by  def.  with  withdrawal  of 
further  supplies  if  he  continued  to  supply  third  party  with 
whom  pi.  had  contract.  Held  actionable  to  employ  illegal 
means  to  induce  breach  of  contract. 

Willner  v.  Silverman  (1909).  Civil  Action.  Blacklist. 
Illegal.  Where  employee  of  members  of  association  of  cloth- 
iers organized  principally  to  discipline  employees,  circulated 
through  the  association  a  letter  falsely  reciting  that  cutter  in 
the  employ  of  member  had  been  discharged  because  of  his  at- 
tempts to  disorganize  employment,  and  that  the  association 
should  support  member  in  this  matter,  and  refuse  cutter  em- 
ployment, the  cutter,  being  damaged  by  letter,  has  a  right  of 
action  against  emploj^er.  A  malicious  interference  by  indi- 
vidual or  by  combination  with  the  business  or  occupation  of 
another,  followed  by  damage,  is  actionable. 

New  Jersey 

General  application  of  the  statutes  is  doubtful.  The  courts 
have  repeatedly  issued  injunctions  against  compound  boycot- 
ting of  various  kinds,  against  issuing  appeals  or  circulars  tend- 
ing to  interfere  with  the  business  of  another,  and  even  against 
merely  persuading  customers  to  withdraw  their  patronage,  in 
order  to  force  complainant  to  adopt  a  particular  mode  of 
doing  business.  They  have  also  sustained  actions  for  damages 
in  cases  of  labor  boycotts.  On  the  other  hand,  the  courts  have 
refused  to  grant  an  injunction  to  protect  pickets  in  their  work, 
and  have  declared  legal  agreement  of  workers  not  to  work 
for  any  person  employing  non-union  men. 

Statutes:  Acts  of  1903,  Chap.  257,  Sec.  63,  entitled  "In- 
terference by  Strikers."     Prohibits  interference  with  railroad 


368  BOYCOTTS 

employees  by  strikers.  Max.  punishment,  $500,  and  i  yr. 
Chap.  235,  Sec.  37,  Gen.  Conspiracy  Act.  Application  Doubt- 
ful. 

Mayer  v.  Stonecutters'  Association  (1890).  For  Injunction. 
Labor  Boycott.  Not  Enjoinable.  Members  of  union  agreed 
.not  to  work  with  any  but  members  of  union  or  for  any  em- 
ployer who  insisted  on  their  doing  so.  Held  legal,  so  long  as 
peaceful  means  used. 

Van  Horn  v.  Van  Horn  (1890).  Civil  Action.  Trade 
Boycott.  Illegal.  PL,  who  owned  millinery  store,  accused 
def.  of  endeavoring  to  ruin  business  by  trying  to  induce  whole- 
salers not  to  sell  goods  to  him  and  stating  that  goods  did  not 
belong  to  him.     Held  malicious. 

Barr  v.  Essex  Trades  Council  (1894).  For  Injunction. 
Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal.  Typo- 
graphical Union  members  went  on  strike  against  the  Newark 
Times  because  it  started  the  use  of  plate  matter.  During 
strike  they,  in  conjunction  with  the  Trade  Council  of  Essex 
County,  issued  circulars  and  booklets  calling  on  laborers,  pub- 
lic and  advertisers  to  cease  patronizing  Times.  As  a  result, 
several  advertisers  withdrew.  Held  that  combination  was  ma- 
licious interference  with  freedom  to  carry  on  business;  that 
intimidation  was  used  toward  advertisers  and  members  of  the 
unions,  and  that  combination  often  changes  the  character  of 
an  act. 

Frank  v.  Herold  (1901).  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott 
Involving  Workmen.  (Form  of  Picketing).  Illegal.  Union 
on  strike,  enjoined  from  intimidating  and  annoying  others 
while  picketing.  Held  unlawful  for  third  parties  to  interfere 
with  employees  against  latter's  consent  and  to  endeavor  to  in- 
duce them  to  quit  by  lawful  means. 

Jersey  City  Printing  Co.  v.  Cassidy  (1902).  For  Injunc- 
tion. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  (Involv- 
ing Picketing.)  Illegal.  Similar  to  Frank  v.  Herold,  supra. 
Also  declared  illegal  to  endeavor  by  coercion  to  get  employees 
to  break  their  contract;  interference  with  freedom  to  employ 
and  be  employed. 


APPENDIX  369 

Martin  v.  McFall  {1903).  For  Injunction.  Secondary 
Boycott  Involving  Patronage,  and  Workmen.  Illegal.  Mem- 
bers of  Bakers'  Union  endeavored  to  compel  employer  to  ac- 
cede to  their  demands  by  persuading  others  not  to  deal  vi^ith 
him,  and  by  rendering  it  difficult  or  uncomfortable  for  willing 
workers  to  work.  Held  these  acts  unlawful,  when  used  to 
compel  complainant  to  adopt  a  particular  mode  of  doing  his 
business. 

Atkins  v.  W.  and  A.  Fletcher  Co.  (1903).  For  Injunc- 
tion. Blacklist.  Legal.  Employers  in  the  N.  Y.  Metal 
Trades'  Ass'n  refused  to  employ  any  person  on  strike  against 
Fletcher  Brothers.  PI.  was  thus  unable  to  secure  employment. 
Held  combination  of  employers  could  refuse  any  kind  or  class 
of  men;  that,  however,  if  pi.  showed  that  defendants  had 
deprived  him  of  all  opportunity  of  securing  employment  other 
than  at  Fletcher  Brothers,  and  molested  employees  in  getting 
a  job,  he  would  be  entitled  to  an  injunction. 

Dressier  v.  Sellers  (1904).  Civil  Action.  Illegal.  The 
boycotting  of  a  firm  on  their  failure  to  pay  an  arbitrary  claim 
on  them  by  a  labor  union  is  illegal. 

Van  Der  Piatt  v.  Undertakers'  and  Liverymen's  Ass'n  of 
Passaic  (1905).  For  Injunction.  Trade  Boycott.  Legal. 
PI.  charged  he  was  refused  undertaker's  supplies  by  def.  ass'n 
as  a  result  of  a  provision  in  their  by-laws.  Defs.  denied  alle- 
gation. Held  that  one  not  showing  any  place  of  business  can- 
not secure  injunction  restraining  defs.  from  boycotting;  that 
personal  or  property  right  must  be  shown. 

Brennan  v.  United  Hatters  of  No.  Am.,  Local  No.  17 
(1906).  Civil  Action.  Labor  Boycott.  Illegal.  Def.  or- 
ganization took  card  away  from  pi.  because  he  refused  to  pay 
$500  fine,  and  then  caused  discharge.  Held  that  whoever  in- 
tentionally, without  justification,  procures  employer  to  dis- 
charge employee  to  damage  of  the  latter,  is  liable  for  damages, 
although  there  is  no  binding  contract. 

Alfred  W.  Booth  v.  Burgess  (1906).  Injunction.  Com- 
pound Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal.  PI.  was  manu- 
facturer of  blinds  and  trim  for  building  in  Bayonne.     Def. 


370 


BOYCOTTS 


and  other  union  men  struck  for  closed  shop,  and  sought  to 
induce  boss  carpenters  to  refuse  to  purchase  from  pL,  declar- 
ing him  unfair,  and  threatening  to  call  employees  off  if  they 
continued  to  purchase.  Some  bosses  broke  contracts  and  others 
ceased  purchasing.  Held  that  an  injunction  would  lie,  as  ac- 
tions of  defs.  interfered  with  the  right  to  a  free  market,  and 
that  no  surrender  of  liberty  on  part  of  employees  on  entering 
union  could  affect  this  right. 

George  Jonas  Glass  Co.  v.  Glass  Bottle  Blowers  (1907). 
For  Injunction.  Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott  Involving 
Patronage.  Illegal.  Defs.,  who  went  on  strike  against  pis., 
tried  to  induce  Whittemore  Brothers  of  Boston,  manufac- 
turers of  shoe  polish,  to  cease  to  patronize  pi.  Whittemore 
Brothers  purchased  some  $35,000  worth  of  bottles  from  pi. 
during  year.  Circulars  were  sent  to  unions,  and  requests  made 
that  union  delegates  request  merchants  to  cease  their  purchase 
of  Whittemore's  polish.  Injunction  issued,  restraining  defs. 
from  persuading  or  inducing  persons  not  to  deal  with  pi.  be- 
cause it  employs  non-union  workmen,  or  refuses  to  be  union- 
ized.   Union  dictation  was  condemned. 

Ruddy  V.  U.  Ass'n  of  Journeymen  Plumbers,  etc.  (1910). 
Civil  Action.  Compound  Labor  Boycott.  Illegal.  PI. 
charges  that  he  was  discharged  by  two  employers  in  Newark 
because  they  were  warned  that  members  of  the  union  would 
quit  unless  he  was  dismissed.  Object  of  the  workers  was  to 
induce  pi.  to  join  the  union.     Court  held  he  could  recover. 

New    York 

Use  of  violence  in  boycott  is  made  illegal  by  statute.  The 
secondary  boycott,  where  coercive  measures  are  not  resorted 
to,  is  declared  legal  by  the  courts.  It  is  legal  to  publish  cir- 
culars requesting  third  parties  to  cease  to  patronize  boycotted 
concerns,  and  stating  that  they  will  lose  the  custom  of  the 
boycotters  should  they  not  accede  to  the  request.  It  is  legal 
to  strike  in  order  to  force  employers  to  discharge  non-members 
of  union,  and  to  promote  other  forms  of  labor  boycott,  provid- 


APPENDIX  371 

ing,  however,  that  the  union  boycotting  has  not  a  monopoly 
of  the  labor  field,  and  the  boycotted  workers  will  not  be  driven 
out  of  the  locality  on  account  of  such  boycott.  The  use  of 
actual  force,  intimidation,  etc.,  is  illegal. 

Statutes:  St.  1901,  Penal  Law,  Sec.  530,  entitled  "Coer- 
cion." Illegal  for  a  person  to  compel  another  to  do  or  to 
abstain  from  doing  a  legal  act  by  the  use  of  violence  or  the 
infliction  of  injury  upon  such  person  or  member  of  his  family 
or  his  property;  also  threats  of  such  violence  or  injury.  Penal 
Law,  Sec.  580,  Par.  5,  entitled  "Conspiracy."  Misdemeanor 
for  two  or  more  to  interfere  with  the  exercising  of  a  lawful 
trade,  etc.,  by  force,  threats  or  intimidation.  Sec.  171b,  added 
to  Penal  Code  by  Chap.  349,  Acts  of  1903,  entitled  "Protec- 
tion of  Employees  as  members  of  the  National  Guard."  Il- 
legal to  interfere  with  employment  of  any  member  of  the  Na- 
tional Guard. 

Johnston  Harvester  Co.  v.  Meinhardt  (1881).  For  In- 
junction. Secondary  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Legal. 
Defs.  were  charged  with  inducing  employees  to  leave  pi.  by 
persuasion,  personal  appeals,  the  giving  of  traveling  expenses, 
etc.  Held  that  the  laws  of  1870,  Chap.  19,  having  altered 
the  common  law  rule,  there  was  no  ground  for  injunction. 

Buffalo  Lubricating  Oil  Co.  (Limited)  v.  Chas.  M.  Ever- 
est (1883).  Trade  Boycott.  Def.  was  charged  with  enticing 
skilled  workmen  from  employment  and  of  soliciting  customers 
of  pi.  by  letters  and  other  means  not  to  deal  with  the  latter, 
and  threatening  lawsuits. 

People  V.  Wilzig  (1886).  (Court  of  Oyer  and  Terminer.) 
Criminal  Conspiracy.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patron- 
age. Extortion.  Illegal.  Members  of  the  Carl  Sahm  Mu- 
sical Club  and  of  the  Waiters'  and  Bartenders'  Unions  boy- 
cotted complainant,  owner  of  a  large  hotel  on  E.  14th  St., 
Manhattan,  for  refusal  to  employ  only  members  of  their  union 
and  to  concede  certain  other  demands.  They  were  charged, 
in  conjunction  with  the  Central  Labor  Union,  with  congre- 
gating around  the  doors  of  the  hotel  in  large  crowds ;  with  dis- 
tributing circulars  and  parading  with  placards  on  which  pa- 


372  BOYCOTTS  ^ 

trons  were  urged  to  boycott  the  hotel,  as  Theiss,  the  proprie- 
tor, was  a  foe  of  organized  labor.  It  was  further  alleged  that 
they  pasted  stickers  on  the  tables,  walls,  etc.,  set  fire  to  a 
machine  containing  a  vile  smelling  mixture;  appealed  to  one 
Shultz  not  to  furnish  complainant  with  mineral  water ;  threat- 
ened Ehret,  the  brewer,  with  a  boycott  if  he  continued  to  fur- 
nish Theiss  with  beer,  and,  finally,  that  they  extorted  from  the 
proprietor  $i,ooo  to  pay  the  cost  of  the  boycott.  Five  were 
arrested  and  indicted  on  the  charge  of  violating  Sees.  552  and 
553  of  the  Penal  Code  relating  to  extortion^  Held  that  these 
acts,  when  accompanied  by  force,  threats  and  intimidation, 
were  illegal,  and  that  intimidation  may  be  spelled  out,  although 
unaccompanied  by  physical  violence.  The  right  of  peaceful 
secondary  boycott  was,  however,  upheld.  Defs.  were  sentenced 
to  terms  varying  from  i  yr.  6  mos.  to  2  yrs.  8  mos. 

People  V.  Kostka  {1886).  (Court  of  Oyer  and  Terminer.) 
Criminal  Conspiracy.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patron- 
age. Illegal.  During  strike  against  Landgraff,  a  baker  of 
Manhattan,  for  higher  wages  and  a  union  shop,  boycotting 
circulars  were  distributed  by  numbers  of  workers  before  the 
shop.  It  was  alleged  that  boycotters  threatened  the  life  of 
one  of  the  workers  and  delivered  insulting  remarks.  Six  o£ 
those  indicted  were  sentenced  to  between  10  and  15  days.  The 
court  charged  that  the  defs.  should  be  held  guilty  if  intimida- 
tion could  be  spelled  into  the  acts,  and  that  it  was  unlawful 
to  conspire  to  prevent  the  exercise  of  a  lawful  calling  by  means 
of  intimidation.  The  court  reiterated  its  stand  in  the  case  of 
People  V.  Wilzig  in  favor  of  the  legality  of  secondary  boycotts. 

Walsh  V.  Wright  (1890).  (App.  Div.)  Civil  Action. 
Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  Def.  contracted  with  jobbers  and 
dealers,  whereby  he  agreed  to  give  them  one-half  cent  a  pound 
on  all  purchases  of  Cow  Brand  Saleratus  and  Soda,  provided 
the  dealers  would  not  sell  Dwight's  Cow  Brand  or  any  other 
brand  for  less  than  a  certain  amount.  Held  that  agreement 
was  not  in  violation  of  the  act  against  restraints  of  trade 
(Sherman  Law,  July  2,  1890,  or  Chap.  716  of  Laws  of  N.  Y., 
1893),  and  that  there  is  nothing  unlawful  in  agreeing  not  to 


APPENDIX  373 

sell  property  that  one  owns  or  will  acquire  at  less  than  a 
certain  amount.  It  was  not  here  alleged  that  such  contracts 
were  entered  into  with  customers  of  pL,  or  that  any  had  been 
induced  to  break  existing  contracts. 

Ryan  v.  Burger  and  Hower  Brewing  Co.  (1891).  (Sup. 
Ct.)  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott  Involving  False  State- 
ments. Illegal.  Def.,  member  of  Brewers'  Ass'n,  was  charged 
with  stating  that  pi.  owed  him  money,  and  with  threatening 
to  hold  other  brewers  liable  if  they  sold  to  him,  pi.  having 
■hired  place  in  which  debtor  of  def.  formerly  lived.  As  a  result, 
pi.  became  insolvent.  Held  action  would  lie,  and  that  the 
:  statements  were  false,  slanderous  and  despotic.  Affirmed  in 
App.  Div.  without  comment. 

Dunlap's  Cable  News  Co.  v.  Stone  (1891).  (Sup.  Ct.) 
For  Injunction.  Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  Press  agency,  in 
contracting  with  customers,  made  stipulation  that  they  should 
not  take  news  from  other  agencies.  PL,  one  of  the  press 
agencies,  applied  for  an  injunction.  Court  refused  it,  declar- 
ing that  it  would  be  time  enough  to  think  of  relief  if  cus- 
tomers complained;  and  that  this  was  an  effort  to  restrain  de- 
fendant from  transacting  business  in  his  own  way. 

Rogers  v.  Evarts  (1891).  (Sup.  Ct.)  For  Injunction. 
Secondary  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Also  Involves 
Freedom  of  Press.  Legal.  Cigar  makers  struck  for  higher 
wages.  Binghamton  Leader  published  favorable  accounts  of 
strike,  advising  and  encouraging  workers  to  leave.  Held  that 
no  injunction  would  be  granted  forbidding  such  publications, 
as  one  has  the  right  to  publish  fair  and  impartial  accounts,  and 
that  it  is  only  when  accounts  of  an  unlawful  conspiracy  are  so 
colored  as  to  express  approval  and  encouragement  that  the 
;acts  become  illegal. 

Sinsheimer  v.  Garment  Workers  (1894).  (App.  Div.) 
For  Injunction.  Secondary  Boycott  Involving  Patronage. 
Legal.  Defs.,  on  strike  against  pis.  for  discriminating  against 
-union  men,  distributed  circulars  to  customers,  which  stated 
their   grievance   and   asked  customers   to   discontinue   trading 


374  BOYCOTTS 

with  them.  Acts  held  legal,  as  unaccompanied  by  acts  of 
violence,  injury  to  property,  threats  or  intimidation. 

Reynolds  v.  Everett  (1894)-  For  Injunction.  Secondary 
Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Legal.  PI.,  manufacturer  of 
cigars,  sought  injunction  to  prevent  strikers,  on  strike  against 
a  decrease  of  visages,  to  induce  others  to  quit.  Held  that  per- 
suasion unconnected  with  intimidation,  was  legal,  and  that  the 
injunction  is  issued  only  when  it  is  clear  that,  unless  granted, 
there  would  be  irreparable  injury  and  no  remedy  at  law. 
Here  the  strike  was  over.  • 

Davis  V.  Zimmerman  (1895)-  (Sup.  Ct.)  For  Injunc- 
tion. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  Hat 
and  cap  manufacturer,  whose  employees,  members  of  the 
Clothing,  Hat  and  Cap  Operators'  Union,  were  on  strike, 
applied  for  injunction  to  restrain  these  defs.  from  inducing 
employees  to  leave  his  service  by  force,  threats  and  intimi- 
dation. Injunction  granted  as  defs.  were  irresponsible,  dam- 
ages were  unascertainable,  and  the  civil  remedy  would  entail 
a  multitude  of  suits.  Acts  declared  to  constitute  injury  to 
property. 

Curran  v.  Galen  (1897).  Civil  Action.  Compound  Labor 
Boycott.  Illegal.  Ale  Brewers'  Ass'n  of  Rochester  entered 
into  agreement  with  the  Brewery  Workers'  Ass'n  to  the  eflFect 
that  the  manufacturers  shall  not  employ  any  worker  not  a 
member  of  the  association,  or  retain  for  more  than  four  weeks 
any  employee  who  refuses  to  join  such  union.  Action  was 
brought  by  pL,  a  non-union  engineer,  on  the  ground  that  such 
agreement  took  away  his  means  of  livelihood.  Held  defs. 
guilty  of  conspiracy  to  interfere  with  liberty  of  pi.  to  pursue 
lawful  trade  without  interference,  and  to  coerce  him  by  agree- 
ments with  employers  to  join  the  union,  under  penalty  of  loss 
of  position.  The  combination  was  declared  to  be  against 
public  policy,  which  prohibits  monopolies  and  exclusive  priv- 
ileges. 

Davis  V.  United  Portable  Hoisting  Engines  (1898).  (App. 
Div.)  For  Injunction.  Labor  Boycott.  Legal.  Defs.,  en- 
gineers, threatened  to  quit  work  if  employer  did  not  discharge 


APPENDIX  375 

non-union  engineer,  hired  temporarily.  Held  that  no  injunc- 
tion would  issue,  as  the  defs.  have  a  right  to  refuse  to  work 
with  non-union  men,  as  no  contract  relations  were  interfered 
with  and  as  the  purpose  of  the  inducement  was  to  procure 
employment  for  others. 

Park  &  Sons  Co.  v.  National  Wholesale  Drug  Ass'n  (1898). 
(App.  Div.)  For  Injunction.  Compound  Trade  Boycott. 
Illegal.  Nat.  Wholesale  Drug  Ass'n,  organized  1891,  induced 
their  members  to  refuse  to  trade  with  those  dealers  not  abid- 
ing by  the  association's  rules  regarding  commissions,  rebates, 
cartage,  etc.,  in  an  effort  to  make  it  impossible  for  such  dealers 
to  carry  on  their  business.  Held  that  it  was  necessary  to  set 
out  every  step  to  establish  the  boycott,  and  that  it  was  not 
irrelevant  to  set  forth  the  various  actions  of  defs.  by  way  of 
characterizing  the  object  for  which  the  boycott  had  been  organ- 
ized.    Also  considered  by  Court  of  Appeals,   1903. 

Coons  V.  Chrystie  (1898).  (Sup.  Ct.)  For  Injunction. 
Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Il- 
legal. Def.,  Christie,  president  of  the  Am.  Plumbers'  and  Gas 
Fitters'  Benevolent  and  Prot.  Ass'n,  entered  premises  of  pi. 
and  ordered  a  strike.  Held  that  unions  and  walking  delegates 
could  be  enjoined  from  causing  workmen  of  another  to  aban- 
don work,  although  there  were  no  threats  or  acts  of  intimida- 
tion, and  although  the  workmen  had  agreed  not  to  accept  em- 
ployment from  such  unaffiliated  persons  as  pi.,  also  that  fact 
that  workmen  left  pl.'s  employ  makes  inference  irresistible  that 
they  were  coerced  by  anticipation  of  some  recognized  penalty. 

Matthews  v.  Shankland  (1898).  (Sup.  Ct.)  Compound 
Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal.  Typographical  Union 
No.  9  struck  against  Buffalo  Express,  a  daily  newspaper,  be- 
cause of  its  refusal  to  unionize  shop,  pay  certain  scale  of  wages 
and  abide  by  rules  of  union.  The  United  Trades  and  Labor 
Council  of  Buffalo  resolved  that  business  men  of  Buffalo  be 
notified  that  Express  is  a  non-union  shop  and  that  members  of 
other  unions  be  instructed  not  to  patronize  any  advertisers  in 
paper.  They  informed  advertisers  that  continued  patronage 
meant  loss  of  union  custom.     Other  trades  sent  similar  resolu- 


376  BOYCOTTS 

tions  to  merchants.  The  beer  peddlers  imposed  a  $2  fine  on 
those  reading  the  Express.  Held  that  acts  threatened  and 
intimidated  patrons;  declared  legal,  however,  for  labor  or- 
ganizations to  refuse  to  patronize  the  Express  and  to  refuse 
to  give  support  to  any  patronizing  the  paper. 

Tallman  v.  Gaillard  (1899).  (Sup.  Ct.)  For  Injunction. 
Compound  Labor  Boycott.  Legal.  Defs.,  carpenters  and 
joiners,  were  charged  with  threatening  a  general  strike  unless 
pi.  was  discharged.  Held  that  no  injunction  would  be  issued 
as  there  was  no  allegation  of  persecution,  and  the  means  used 
were  lawful.  • 

Sun  Printing  and  Publishing  Co.  v.  Delaney  ( 1900).  (App. 
Div.)  For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Pat- 
ronage. Illegal.  Defs.,  members  of  the  Typographical  Union 
on  strike,  endeavored  to  induce  advertisers,  through  circulars, 
to  cease  advertising  in  Sun  through  fear  of  loss  of  business, 
and  to  persuade  newsdealers  to  cease  handling  paper.  Lower 
court  granted  sweeping  injunction  against  giving  publicity  to 
their  complaints,  and  from  in  any  way  interfering  with  property 
or  property  rights  of  the  pi.  App.  Div.  modified  injunction, 
enjoining  only  those  acts  accompanied  by  threats,  intimidation, 
etc. 

People  v.  Chandler  (1900).  (App.  Div.)  Criminal  Con- 
spiracy. Legal.  Def.  had  posted  up  circulars,  "Boycott  the 
Sun/'  and  had  been  convicted  by  the  Court  of  Special  Ses- 
sions of  violating  Sec.  168,  par.  5,  of  Penal  Code,  against 
conspiracy.  Inasmuch  as  no  agreement  with  the  printer  of 
the  posters  or  anyone  else  was  shown,  def.  was  held  not  guilty. 

People  V.  Radt  (1900).  (Ct.  of  Gen.  Sess.)  Criminal 
Conspiracy.  Secondary  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Circu- 
lars Issued.  Legal.  Here  two  members  of  the  bakers'  union 
were  appointed  to  take  charge  of  boycott  proceedings  against 
complainant.  Circulars  were  issued,  urging  union  men  and 
the  public  to  purchase  goods  from  others.  Posters  were  also 
printed  and  distributed  worded,  "Scab  Labor,  Don't  Patron- 
ize," and  containing  the  name  and  address  of  pi.  Held  that, 
as  there  were  no  threats  or  intimidation  and  no  interference 


APPENDIX  377 

with  the  implements  or  property  used  by  the  employees  of  the 
complainant,  defs.  were  not  guilty  of  violating  the  conspiracy 
sec.  of  the  code,  Sec.  i68,  Sub.  5  (Sec.  580  of  Penal  Law). 

Reynolds  v.  Plumbers'  Material  Protective  Ass'n  (1900). 
Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  In  by-laws  of  the  def.'s 
association,  it  was  provided  that,  unless  a  member  of  the  asso- 
cfation,  indebted  to  another,  settled  or  consented  to  arbitrate, 
the  corporation  might  send  a  statement  to  the  members  that 
the  debtor's  name  was  taken  from  the  books,  and  that  the 
members  would  not  then  be  permitted  to  sell  to  him  except  for 
cash  before  delivery.  Held  not  illegal  to  combine  for  the  pro- 
tection of  each  other  against  irresponsible  persons  in  the  ab- 
sence of  evidence  imputing  a  guilty  motive,  and  that  there 
was  no  coercion. 

Tanenbaum  v.  N.  Y.  Fire  Insurance  Exchange  (1900). 
(Sup.  Ct.)  For  Injunction.  Trade  Boycott,  Involving  Un- 
licensed Brokers.  Legal.  Members  of  Ins.  Ex.  agreed  to 
pay  commissions  only  to  those  brokers  licensed  by  Exchange. 
Held  that  Exchange  cannot  be  enjoined  by  non-member  from 
carrying  out  this  agreement  on  the  ground  of  conspiracy 
against  unlicensed  broker  or  in  restraint  of  trade;  that  it  must 
be  shown  that  pL,  by  legal  right,  could  insist  that  business  be 
accepted  by  companies. 

Beattie  v.  Callahan  (1901).  (App.  Div.)  For  Injunc- 
tion. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage  and  Work- 
men. Illegal.  Defs.,  painters  in  N.  Y.  City,  were  charged 
with  interfering  with  pi's,  business  by  threats,  force  and  fraud, 
and  with  preventing  members  of  the  defs.  union  from  working 
for  pi.     Held  these  acts  could  be  enjoined. 

Collins  V.  American  News  Co.  (1902).  (App.  Div.)  For 
Injunction.  Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  Def.  refused  to  sell 
papers  to  pi.  newsdealer  because  he  distributed  circulars  with 
his  newspapers,  advertising  certain  goods.  Held  no  injunc- 
tion would  issue ;  that  what  one  had  a  right  to  do,  others  could 
combine  to  do,  and  that  there  was  nothing  malicious  in  defs. 
gction,  but  only  a  desire  to  protect  itself. 

Cohen  V.  United  Garment  Workers    (1901).      (Sup.  Ct.) 


378  BOYCOTTS 

For  Injunction.  Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott  Involving 
Patronage.  Legal.  Defs.,  Garment  Workers  of  N.  Y.  City, 
on  strike  against  pi.,  sent  circulars  to  latter's  customers,  notify- 
ing them  of  the  controversy  and  requesting  that  they  cease 
dealing  with  him,  threatening,  in  case  of  refusal,  that  they 
would  lose  the  patronage  of  the  combination.  Held  that,  in 
the  absence  of  threats  or  intimidation,  these  acts  would  not 
be  restrained. 

Herzog  v.  Fitzgerald  (1902).  (App.  Div.)  For  Injunc- 
tion. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  Here 
an  injunction  was  granted  pendente  lite,  restra^ing  employees 
from  conducting  acts  of  violence  and  intimidation  against  per- 
sons still  in  pl.'s  employ,  where  specific  instances  of  threats 
were  charged,  and  there  was  only  a  general  denial. 

Foster  v.  Retail  Clerks'  I.  Prot.  Ass'n  (1902).  (Sup.  Ct.) 
For  Injunction.  Secondary  Boycott  Involving  Patronage  and 
Workmen.  Legal.  Retail  clerks  of  Syracuse  struck  against 
pis.  for  reduction  of  hours  of  labor.  They  distributed  circu- 
lars declaring  that  Foster,  Hinman  and  Co.  had  been  declared 
unfair  by  the  Retail  Clerks'  Local  Union  and  Trades  Assem- 
bly; endeavored  to  persuade  customers  and  union  men  to  stay 
away  from  store  and  maintained  pickets.  Held  no  injunction 
would  issue  to  prevent  these  acts.  Motive  and  fact  of  com- 
bination considered  immaterial.  It  would,  however,  be  illegal 
for  the  defs.  to  enter  premises  of  the  pis.  for  any  purpose 
except  for  bona  fide  purpose  of  trade,  or  to  so  act  as  to  collect 
crowds  or  obstruct  movement  along  the  sidewalks  at  or  in 
the  neighborhood  of  the  store. 

Trapp  V.  Du  Bois  (1902).  (App.  Div.)  Civil  Action, 
Involving  Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  For  failure  to  pay  part  of 
bill  which  pi.  stated  he  didn't  owe,  he  was  placed  on  the 
cash-before-delivery  list  of  Plumbers'  Material  Prot.  Ass'n. 
Held  malice  must  be  shown  before  illegality  would  be  declared. 

National  Protective  Ass'n  v.  Cummings  (1902).  Civil  Ac- 
tion. Compound  Labor  Boycott.  Legal.  Cummings  and 
Nugent,  walking  delegates,  threatened  a  general  strike  unless 
McQueed  and  others  were  discharged  from  employment  on  a 


APPENDIX  379 

building,  and  members  of  the  Enterprise  and  Progress  Asso- 
ciation were  employed.  Strike  followed.  Workmen  brought 
action  against  union.  Held  that  men  have  right  to  refuse  to 
work  for  any  reason,  and  that  it  is  not  illegal  to  threaten  to 
do  what  one  has  a  legal  right  to  do;  that  bad  motive  does  not 
make  a  legal  act  illegal,  but  that  in  this  case  the  motive  was 
a  good  one — that  of  helping  the  members  of  the  union  to  gain 
employment  and  of  protecting  them  against  the  negligence  of 
fellow  employees. 

Rourke  v.  Elk  Drug  Co.  (1902).  (App.  Div.)  For  In- 
junction. Compound  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal.  Def.  drug 
association  was  charged  with  interfering  with  the  pl.'s  adver- 
tising, and  preventing  them  through  intimidation  and  libel 
from  reaching  customers.  Held  organization  was  formed  in 
violation  of  the  laws  of  1899,  which  forbid  restraining  of  com- 
petition (Chap.  690)  and  that  any  act  in  furtherance  of  such 
an  unlawful  conspiracy  could  be  restrained. 

Green  v.  Davies  (1903).  (App.  Div.)  Civil  Action. 
Trade  Boycott.  (Fraud.)  Illegal.  PI.  charged  that  business 
competitors  entered  into  combination  to  ruin  him  through 
sending  circulars  stating  that  he  was  insane  and  irresponsible. 
He  declared  he  was  damaged  thereby  to  the  extent  of  $20,000. 
Held  illegal.     App.  Div.  decided  only  on  demurrer. 

Master  Horseshoers'  Prot.  Ass'n  v.  Quinlivan  (1903).  For 
Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Il- 
legal. Defs.  struck  because  they  were  not  able  to  affix  seals 
to  manufactured  goods,  and  endeavored  to  prevent  others  from 
taking  their  places.  Court  issued  injunction  restraining  acts 
of  physical  violence. 

W.  P.  Davis  Machine  Co.  v.  Robinson  (1903).  (Sup. 
Ct.)  For  Injunction.  Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott  In- 
volving Patronage  and  Workmen.  Illegal.  Machinists,  on 
strike  for  a  closed  shop  in  Rochester,  were  charged  with  con- 
gregating around  factory,  shouting  at  and  assaulting  workers 
and  threatening  customers  with  loss  of  business  if  they  traded 
with  pis.  Held  virtually  that  any  endeavor  to  entice  away 
employees,  when  not  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  an  advance 


380  BOYCOTTS 

in  or  of  maintaining  rate  of  wages,  illegal.  Injunction  issued, 
enjoining  the  inducing  of  employees  to  leave  employment 
through  intimidation,  etc.,  and  from  interfering  in  any  man- 
ner with  the  business  of  pi. 

Kellogg  V.  Sowerby  (1904).  (App.  Div.)  Civil  Action, 
Trade  Boycott  Involving  Discrimination  in  Railroad  Rates. 
Illegal.  Western  Elevator  Ass'n  made  agreement  with  rail- 
roads whereby  latter  would  return  to  association  one-half  cent 
a  bushel  for  every  bushel  of  grain  shipped  by  them  and  pi. 
Held  pi.  was  discriminated  against.  Def.  was  ckaracterized 
as  an  unlawful  combination  formed  to  deprive  pi.  of  reason- 
able opportunity  to  operate  profitably. 

People  V.  McFarlin  (1904).  (County  Ct.)  Criminal 
Conspiracy.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Il- 
legal. Carpenters'  Union  in  Rochester,  on  strike,  advertised 
the  complainant's  factory  as  unfair;  posted  unfair  notices  on 
materials,  distributed  placards,  and  threatened  to  boycott  con- 
tractors who  would  not  sign  agreement  not  to  purchase  any 
material  from  unfair  shops.  Held  that  men  had  a  right  to 
strike  and  to  influence  others  to  withdraw  their  patronage, 
but  that  they  had  no  right  to  coerce  would-be  customers  not 
to  purchase  from  complainant  through  fear  of  ruin;  that 
agreement  with  contractors  was  in  restraint  of  trade,  con- 
demned by  Subdivision  6  of  168  of  the  Penal  Code;  that  its 
legality  would  mean  control  of  the  entire  business  by  defs. 
and  that  threats  to  promote  hostility  toward  anyone  who  dares 
employ  a  non-union  man  was  a  conspiracy  to  prevent  another 
from  following  his  lawful  occupation,  and  violative  of  Subdiv. 
5  of  Sec.  168,  Penal  Code. 

Mills  V.  U.  S.  Printing  Co.  (1904).  (App.  Div.)  For 
Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Il- 
legal. (Secondary  Boycott,  however.  Legal.)  Sweeping  in- 
junction had  been  granted  by  lower  court  against  picketing 
and  boycotting  by  stereotypers  and  electrotypers  on  strike. 
Justice  Jenks  declared  that  a  boycott  was  not  necessarily  il- 
legal; that  one  had  right  to  refuse  to  deal  with  another,  and 
that  a  combination  may  do  what  one  can  so  long  as  there  is 


APPENDIX  381 

no  unlawful  object  in  view;  and  that  two  or  more  may  by 
persuasion  and  entreaty,  bring  others  to  their  side.  Although 
effect  of  the  combination  is  to  injure  another,  when  the  result 
sought  is  to  protect  the  members  of  a  combination  or  to  en- 
hance their  welfare,  the  loss  is  but  an  incident  of  the  act,  the 
means  whereby  the  ultimate  end  is  gained.  The  use  of  vio- 
lence, however,  is  illegal. 

Jacobs  V.  Cohen  (1905).  Labor  Boycott.  Legal.  Coat 
Tailors'  Union  made  agreement  with  employers  that  during  a 
certain  period  only  union  men  should  be  employed.  Held  such 
agreement  was  not  in  violation  of  public  policy;  was  not  made 
to  injure  other  workmen,  was  hot  oppressive  as  involving  ex- 
clusion from  the  entire  trade.  Employees  had  a  right  to  limit 
the  class  of  their  fellow  workmen.  Promissory  note  given  by 
employers  to  guarantee  enforcement  of  contract  was  declared 
valid. 

Butterick  Publishing  Co.  v.  Union  No.  6  (1906).  (Sup. 
Ct.)  If  Secondary  Boycott,  Involving  Patronage,  Unless 
Malice  Shown,  Legal;  If  Compound  Boycott,  Illegal.  Over 
300  pressmen,  feeders  and  compositors,  belonging  to  the  I. 
Printing  Pressmen,  and  Assistants'  Union,  struck  for  an  8- 
hour  day  and  closed  shop  against  pi.,  and  sent  circulars 
throughout  the  United  States  requesting  customers  not  to 
purchase  pl.'s  publications,  or  those  printed  by  pi.  for  cus- 
tomers, and  stating  that  they  would  advise  their  members  and 
friends  to  withhold  patronage  from  merchants  and  agents  deal- 
ing in  such  publications.  PI.  alleged  that  it  received  135  let- 
ters canceling  subscriptions,  or  asking  for  adjustment  of  dif- 
ferences. It  also  alleged  it  had  to  board  some  of  its  employees. 
Held  that  defs.  were  within  their  legal  rights  in  publishing  the 
circumstances  of  the  strike,  and  requesting  others  to  withhold 
patronage,  but  that  if  violence  was  shown,  or  if  acts  were 
committed  with  malevolent  motives  toward  pi.  rather  than 
with  benevolent  motives  toward  defs.  own  interest,  acts  would 
lose  their  lawful  character. 

Locker  v.  American  Tobacco  Co.  (1907).  (App.  Div.) 
Tr^de  Boycott.     Legal.     Agent  of  def.  refused  to  sell  to  pi. 


382  BOYCOTTS 

Held  no  violation  of  State  Statute  (Laws  of  1899,  Chap.  690) 
to  show  that  one  def.,  controlling  9  per  cent,  of  the  trade, 
had  appointed  a  sole  selling  agent  who  had  refused  to  sell  to 
pi.,  and  that  no  unlawful  monopoly  was  proved. 

Kellogg  V.  Sowerby  (1907).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boy- 
cott. Legal,  Where  Motive  Innocent.  Elevator  owners  and 
railroads  made  agreement  to  discriminate  against  non-mem- 
bers, in  order  to  regulate  competition  in  grain  business.  The 
railroads  testified  they  believed  the  pis.  would  come  into  com- 
bination when  they  contracted.  Held  that,  inasmuch  as  rail- 
roads at  that  time  did  not  mean  to  discriminate,  there  was  no- 
cause  of  action  for  conspiracy  under  Subd.  6  of  Sec.  i68  of 
Penal  Code. 

In  Re  McCormick  (1909).  (App.  Div.)  Compound  Boy- 
cott Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  Typog.  Union  No.  6  was 
on  strike  against  the  Typothetae  of  N.  Y.  City  and  attempted 
to  prevent  workers  from  securing  employment.  Held  that  this 
was  unlawful  if  more  than  peaceful  persuasion  was  used. 

Schlang  v.  Ladies'  Waist  Makers'  Union  (1910).  (Sup. 
Ct.)  For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patron- 
age. Illegal.  Defs.  on  strike  against  pis.  threatened  to  call 
a  strike  in  factories  which  sold  goods  to  pi.  Held  that  this 
action  interfered  with  pl.'s  right  to  purchase  goods  where  he 
desired  and  is  against  spirit  of  government. 

Schwarcz  v.  International  Ladies'  Garment  Workers 
(1910).  (Sup.  Ct.)  For  Injunction.  Compound  Labor 
Boycott.  Illegal.  Strike  was  ordered  by  trade  union  to  ob- 
tain closed  shop.  Held  that  purpose  of  the  strike  was  to 
drive  out  non-union  men  working  at  that  trade  unless  they 
joined  union,  that  this  was  an  illegal  purpose  and  that  every 
act  in  pursuance  of  strike,  such  as  picketing,  etc.,  was  illegal. 
It  distinguished  the  case  from  that  of  the  Nat.  Prot.  Ass'n 
on  ground  of  the  illegal  motive,  and  the  wide  combination  to 
drive  non-union  men  out  of  the  trade  of  the  community. 

McCord  v.  Thompson  Starrett  Co.  (1910).  Compound 
Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  Employers,  members 
of  Bid.  Trades  Employers'  Ass'n,  issued  an  order  that  no  men 


APPENDIX  383 

not  members  of  a  certain  union  should  be  retained  in  the 
employ  of  any  of  their  members  unless  they  immediately 
joined.  Held  against  public  policy  of  the  state  for  employers 
who  control  practically  the  whole  trade  of  the  community  to 
compel  workmen  to  join  a  particular  union  as  a  condition  of 
membership,  although  it  is  lawful  for  an  individual  employer 
to  agree  with  labor  unions  to  employ  its  members  only. 

Albro  J.  Newton  Co.  v.  Erickson  (1911).  (Sup.  Ct.) 
For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage. 
Illegal.  Woodwork  men  on  strike  against  pis.  sent  circulars 
to  contractors  stating  that  union  men  would  not  handle  ma- 
terial not  made  under  union  conditions,  and  containing  list 
of  firms  working  under  union  agreement.  They  were 
charged  with  calling  strikes  against  contractors,  enforced  by 
fines.  Injunctions  issued  forbade  publication  of  any  letter,  cir- 
cular, etc.,  or  any  communication,  written  or  oral,  suggesting 
that  labor  troubles  would  follow  use  of  materials  and  from 
directing  person  to  stop  work. 

Louis  Bossert  and  Sons  v.  U.  Br.  of  Carpenters  et  al. 
(1912).  (Sup.  Ct.)  Action  for  Contempt.  Compound  Boy- 
cott Involving  Patronage.  Legal.  Walking  delegate  Rice, 
one  of  the  defs.,  informed  union  men  that  they  were  working 
on  non-union  material,  whereupon  a  number  left.  Held  legal; 
no  compulsion  used,  and  no  law  to  prevent  Rice  from  giving 
information  about  non-union  trim;  even  if  members  were 
threatened  with  fine,  not  illegal,  because  it  was  a  peaceful 
strike  for  purpose  of  advancing  interest  of  Brotherhood.  Dif- 
fers from  Newton  case  on  ground  that  purpose  was  to  advance 
interest  of  labor. 

Pennsylvania 

There  are  no  laws  on  statute  books  specifically  condemning 
boycotts.  Several  injunctions,  however,  have  been  issued  by 
the  courts  against  boycotts  in  labor  disputes  in  which  third 
parties  were  coerced  by  threats  of  loss  of  labor  or  custom, 
and  workmen  threatened.    A  trade  boycott,  on  the  other  hand. 


384  BOYCOTTS 

where  third  parties  were  given  to  understand  that  they  would 
lose  trade  should  they  supply  the  pi.,  was  held  legal.  Mere 
persuasion  not  to  patronize  others,  or  publication  of  circulars 
giving  a  truthful  account  of  trouble,  was  not  declared  illegal. 

Statutes:  Digest,  1895,  Sec.  73.  Act  provides  for  legality 
of  strikes,  and  continues  by  declaring  that  section  shall  not 
prevent  the  prosecution  of  a  workman  by  any  law  other  than 
that  of  conspiracy  of  any  person  who  shall  hinder  a  workman 
in  his  employment  by  threats,  etc. 

Brace  Brothers  v.  Evans  (1888).  (County  CouA.)  For  In- 
junction. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal. 
Female  operatives,  discharged  from  pl.'s  laundry,  near  Wil- 
kensburgh  and  refused  reinstatement,  issued  circulars  setting 
forth  their  side  of  the  case,  alleging  abusive  treatment  and 
requesting  patrons  not  to  deal  with  pi.  They  called  on  public 
to  boycott  those  who  refused  to  resign;  hired  wagons  to  dis- 
play boycott  signs,  distributed  circulars  before  the  shop,  and 
threatened  patrons.  Held  that  in  this  case  it  was  not  neces- 
sary for  them  to  decide  whether  or  not  the  defs.  might  in- 
dividually or  collectively  refuse  to  patronize  pi.  and  advise 
their  friends  and  such  neighbors  as  they  could  reach  not  to 
do  so,  or  that  they  might  not  distribute  circulars  giving  truth- 
ful accounts  of  pl.'s  trouble  with  his  employees;  that  here 
defs.  did  not  limit  themselves  to  peaceful  solicitations,  but  that 
their  acts  were  in  their  nature  threats  and  calculated  to  in- 
timidate. Court  defined  the  word  boycott  as  being  in  itself  a 
threat. 

Murdock  v.  Walker  (1893).  For  Injunction.  Compound 
Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  Discharged  union 
men,  printers  and  pressmen  were  charged  with  gathering  about 
the  place  of  business  and  the  homes  of  non-union  workers,  and 
of  following  non-union  men  around.  Held  the  defs.  had  no 
right  by  force  to  prevent  workmen  from  working  on  such 
terms  as  they  may  agree. 

Cote  v.  Murphy  (1894).  Civil  Action.  Compound  Trade 
Boycott.  Legal.  Members  of  the  building  trades  in  Pitts- 
burgh went  on  strike  for  higher  wages.    The  Allegheny  Plan- 


APPENDIX  385 

Ing  Mill  Ass'n  issued  circular  to  the  lumber  trade  asking  deal- 
ers not  to  sell  material  into  the  section  unless  it  be  on  order 
of  legitimate  dealer,  and  enclosed  list  on  which  the  pl.'s  name 
failed  to  appear,  also  wrote  letter  to  firm  supplying  pi.  that 
it  would  be  to  its  advantage  to  discontinue  sales.  It  was 
understood  that  no  friend  of  the  combination  would  deal  with 
one  selling  to  pi.  PL,  thus  discriminated  against  because  he 
acceded  to  demand  of  workers,  was  unable  to  obtain  material. 
Held  that  no  action  would  lie,  because  association  was  not 
formed  to  lower  wages  of  laborers,  and  methods  adopted  were 
not  illegal.    Threats  to  do  a  lawful  act  are  not  unlawful. 

Buchanan  v.  Barnes  (1894).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boy- 
cott.    Similar  to  Cote  v.  Murphy. 

Buchanan  v.  Kerr  (1894).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott. 
Similar  to  Cote  v.  Murphy.     Legal. 

Wick  China  Co.  v.  Brown  (1894).  Po^  Injunction.  Com- 
pound Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  (Partly  Picketing.) 
Illegal.  Defs.,  members  of  the  Nat.  Br.  of  Operating  Pot- 
ters, were  charged  with  endeavoring  to  induce  others  to  quit 
employment  through  threats,  intimidation,  opprobrious  epi- 
thets; by  gathering  in  crowds  at  places  of  business,  at  board- 
ing houses,  etc.     Held  illegal. 

Oneil  v.  Behanna  (1897).  Por  Injunction.  Compound 
Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  Defs.  in  strike  against 
City  Coal  Works  were  charged  with  surrounding  laborers, 
applying  opprobrious  epithets,  and  urging  them  in  a  hostile 
manner  not  to  work.  Held  such  a  display  of  force  consti- 
tuted intimidation. 

Erdman  v.  Mitchell  (1903).  For  Injunction.  Compound 
Labor  Boycott.  Illegal.  Defs.,  Council  of  Allied  Printing 
Trades  of  Philadelphia,  threatened  to  strike  unless  employers 
discharged  pis.  who  belonged  to  an  incorporated  organization 
known  as  the  Plumbers'  League  of  Philadelphia.  Held  com- 
bination to  prevent  others  from  obtaining  work  through 
threats  of  a  strike  illegal,  interfering  as  it  does  with  the  in- 
'defeasible  rights  of  labor  to  acquire  property. 

Purvis  V.  U.  Br.  of  Carpenters  and  Joiners  (1906).     For 


386  BOYCOTTS 

Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Il- 
legal. Defs.,  on  strike  in  Pittsburgh  for  a  closed  shop,  threat- 
ened customers  with  strike  if  they  purchased  from  pi.  At  a 
critical  time  men  were  taken  off  a  job  conducted  by  a  con- 
tractor who  continued  to  patronize  pL,  and  thus  contractor 
was  induced  to  cease  relations.  Held  that  threats  and  coercion 
were  used  and  that  an  act  putting  one  in  fear  of  loss  of  prop- 
erty may  constitute  coercion.  Injunction  forbade  defs.  to  send 
circulars  through  mails  which  stated  that  carpenters  would  not 
handle  materials  from  certain  mills  not  comp^ing  with  request 
of  their  union,  or  to  request  customers  or  prospective  customers 
to  have  work  done  by  firms  making  an  agreement  with  the 
union,  and,  finally,  to  represent  that  customers  would  sustain  a 
loss. 

Arbour  v.  Trade  Association  (1910).  (Super.  Ct.)  For 
Injunction.  Trade  Boycott.  Had  Power  to  Enjoin.  Pitts- 
burgh Produce  Ass'n  declared  that,  if  any  member  of  associa- 
tion had  a  claim  against  an  outsider,  others  should  not  sell  to 
the  latter  except  for  spot  cash.  Held  that  equity,  under  act 
of  June  19,  1 87 1,  had  power  to  enjoin  trade  association,  as  in 
the  case  of  a  corporation,  from  enforcing  by-laws. 

NORTH    CENTRAL    STATES 

In  Iowa,  Kansas  and  Nebraska  and  Ohio  no  decisions  on 
boycotts  by  the  highest  courts  have  been  noted.  While  in 
Indiana  the  highest  court  has  not  passed  upon  a  boycott  case 
in  a  labor  dispute,  it  has  declared  a  primary  boycott  legal,  and 
one  of  the  lower  courts  has  pronounced  a  labor  boycott,  where 
no  threats  are  used,  legal.  Other  decisions  indicate  that  the 
court  would  probably  hold  a  boycott  illegal  if  coercive  meas- 
ures were  definitely  proved.  Boycotts  are  definitely  prohibited 
here  by  statute,  as  is  also  the  case  in  Illinois. 

In  Illinois  the  boycott  is  illegal,  even  when  persuasive 
measures  only  are  employed,  providing  malice  is  present.  In 
Michigan  the  courts  have  pronounced  the  boycott  illegal.  In 
Missouri    and    Minnesota,    where    third    parties    are    coerced 


APPENDIX  387 

through  fear  of  loss  of  labor,  the  brycotts  are  also  illegal. 
The  unfair  list  has  been  passed  upon  in  three  states.  In  Illi- 
nois and  Minnesota  its  publication  was  enjoined.  In  the 
former  state  a  threat  was  said  to  be  present;  in  the  latter, 
the  judges  specifically  stated  that  threats  would  have  to  be 
proved  before  an  injunction  would  be  issued.  In  Missouri  an 
injunction  against  the  publication  of  circulars  in  pursuance  of 
a  boycott  was  refused,  although  civil  or  criminal  action  was 
declared  possible.  The  Illinois  courts,  by  dicta,  declared  the 
primary  boycott  legal.  In  Wisconsin  the  labor  boycott  has  been 
declared  illegal  by  the  highest  court,  and  from  other  decisions, 
it  seems  probable  that  other  boycotts,  where  coercion  or  malice 
was  present,  would  be  considered  illegal.  In  Ohio,  while  the 
highest  courts  have  not  passed  upon  these  labor  weapons,  the 
lower  courts  have,  at  times,  pronounced  boycotts  illegal,  if 
malice  or  threats  w^ere  present.  Injunctions,  however,  against 
the  issuance  of  boycotting  circulars  have  been  denied. 

Illinois 

Statutes  forbid  boycotts  where  two  or  more  distribute  cir- 
culars, etc.,  and  which  interfere  with  business  by  intimidation, 
etc. 

The  courts  have  declared  primary  boycotts  legal,  and  in  an 
early  trade  boycott  case  of  the  Illinois  Appeals  they  also  pro- 
nounced a  secondary  boycott,  where  persuasive  means  only 
were  used,  legal.  They  have,  however,  declared  illegal  the 
issuance  of  an  "unfair  list,"  where  an  attempt  was  made  to 
influence  third  parties  to  withdraw  patronage  by  threats  of 
loss  of  business,  even  where  the  threats  had  to  be  read  into 
the  act.  They  have  pronounced  strikes  illegal,  when  called  in 
furtherance  of  a  boycott;  also  the  mere  persuasion  of  other 
workers — members  of  organized  labor — to  cease  working  on  the 
material  of  the  boycotted  firm,  where  malice  exists.  Coercion 
of  third  parties  by  threats  to  withdraw  labor  has  also  come 
under  the  ban  of  the  court.  A  trade  boycott,  where  malice 
was  present,  and  an  attempt  made  to  induce  the  breaking  of 


388  BOYCOTTS 

contracts,  was  likewise  pronounced  illegal.  A  blacklist,  un- 
accompanied by  the  absolute  refusal  to  furnish  any  clearance 
card,  was  decided  to  be  legal.  Both  civil  and  equitable  suits 
have  been  resorted  to. 

Statutes:  Rev.  St.  1905,  Chap.  38,  Sec.  46,  entitled  "Boy- 
cotting and  Blacklisting."  Act  forbids  combination  to  issue 
circulars  to  members  of  association  or  others,  for  the  purpose 
of  establishing  a  boycott,  or  to  distribute  written  or  printed 
notices  with  the  malicious  intent  of  injuring  a  person.  Max. 
punishment,  $2,000,  or  5  yrs.  Chap.  38,  Se(^  158,  on  intimi- 
dation, forbids  combination  to  deprive  owner  of  use  of  prop- 
erty, and  to  interfere  with  employment  by  unlawful  means. 
Max.  fine,  $500,  or  imprisonment  of  6  mos.  Sec.  159  pro- 
hibits unlawful  interference  by  individual  in  employment  of 
another.  Max.  fine,  $200.  Sec.  160  forbids  entering  prem- 
ises of  another  with  intent  to  do  injury  by  unlawful  means. 

Ulery  v.  Chicago  Live  Stock  Exchange  (1894)-  (HI-  App.) 
Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  Secretary  of  the  Chi- 
cago Live  Stock  Exchange  posted  in  the  exchange  a  notice 
directing  members  not  to  employ  J.  D.  Ulery,  the  pi.,  in  the 
live  stock  commission  business  until  he  settled  with  another 
firm  from  which  he  was  alleged  to  have  purchased  twenty 
head  of  cattle.  PI.  lost  his  employment  as  a  salesman,  and 
was  damaged,  he  alleged,  to  the  extent  of  $50,000.  Held 
that  one  or  more  persons  may  advise  neighbors  not  to  deal 
with  a  third  party,  and  that  they  may  even  command  when 
the  command  amounts  only  to  earnest  advice;  therefore,  no 
action. 

London  Guarantee,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Horn  (1902).  (111.  App.) 
Civil  Action.  Employer's  Boycott.  Form  of  Blacklist.  Il- 
legal. Employer  discharged  employee,  who  was  injured,  on 
being  threatened  by  accident  insurance  company.  Held  insur- 
ance company  responsible,  and  guilty  of  a  malicious  interfer- 
ence with  the  lawful  business  of  another. 

Doremus  v.  Hennessy  (1898).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boy- 
cott. Illegal.  Laundrymen  in  Chicago  combined  to  boycott 
woman  who  collected   and   distributed   laundry,    and,   it   was 


APPENDIX  389 

alleged,  endeavored  to  bribe  those  to  whom  she  distributed  it 
to  keep  back  her  work  as  long  as  possible,  thus  damaging  her 
to  the  extent  of  $5,000.  Held  this  action  was  malicious  in- 
jury; illegal  to  induce  others  to  break  their  contracts.  Peti- 
tion for  rehearing  was  denied. 

McDonald  v.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.  (1900).  Civil 
Action.  Blacklist.  Legal.  Employee,  who  took  part  in  the 
American  Ry.  strike  of  1894,  was  unable  to  obtain  work  from 
any  other  railroad,  and  was  damaged  to  the  extent  of  $50,000. 
He  charged  he  was  unable  to  obtain  a  clearance  card  such  as 
would  enable  him  to  secure  employment,  and  alleged  that  rail- 
road companies  had  agreed  not  to  employ  strikers  without 
release  and  consent.  Held  that  it  was  not  here  alleged  that 
the  railroad  company  had  refused  to  give  any  clearance  card, 
but  only  such  clearance  as  would  enable  pi.  to  obtain  work. 

O'Brien  v.  People  (1905).  For  Injunction.  Compound 
Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  Strikers  induced  pi's, 
employees  to  leave,  through  threats  and  unlawful  persuasion. 
Held  illegal;  as  was  also  an  attempt  to  secure  closed  shop 
through  fear  of  strike  illegal. 

Purington  v.  Hinchliff  (1905).  Civil  Action.  Compound 
Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal. 
Masons'  and  Builders'  Ass'n,  of  Chicago,  comprising  about  two- 
thirds  of  the  master  builders,  agreed  with  the  Brick  Manufac- 
turers' Ass'n,  containing  95  per  cent,  of  the  manufacturers  of 
brick  in  Cook  County,  that  members  of  the  former  association 
secure  a  trade  discount  over  and  above  that  obtained  by  out- 
siders, and  that  they  purchase  bricks  only  from  the  Manufac- 
turers' Ass'n.  They  also  made  an  agreement  with  the  Brick- 
layers' Union,  which  was  said  to  contain  98  per  cent,  of  mem- 
bers of  this  craft  in  Chicago,  whereby  the  latter  promised  not 
to  handle  brick  from  any  manufacturer  not  in  the  agreement. 
PI.  was  the  chief  competitor  of  the  Brick  Manufacturers' 
Ass'n  in  Cook  County,  having  a  capacity  of  15,000,000  bricks 
a  year.  The  two  associations  and  the  unions  employed  dele- 
gates to  visit  pl.'s  customers  and  to  threaten  them  with  the 
withdrawal  of  their  labor,  and  with  the  imposition  of  fines, 


390  BOYCOTTS 

should  they  continue  to  purchase  from  pi.  This  action  ren- 
dered the  pl.'s  business  worthless.  Held  that  it  was  unlawful, 
directly  or  indirectly,  to  obstruct  another  in  the  lawful  con- 
duct of  his  business.     A  verdict  of  $222,000  was  rendered. 

Piano  and  Organ  Workers'  I.  Union  v.  Piano  and  Organ 
Supply  Co.  (1906).  (111.  App.)  For  Injunction.  Com- 
pound Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal.  The  Piano, 
etc.,  Union,  while  on  strike  against  pL,  resolved  that  all  men 
employed  in  factories  using  pl.'s  supplies  should  refuse  *to  work 
thereupon,  and  sent  circulars  to  that  effect  t(f  pl.'s  customers, 
printing  notice  in  official  journal.  Held  that,  while  it  is  law- 
ful to  strike  for  any  cause,  it  is  unlawful  to  issue  a  strike 
order  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  boycott  on  a  person's 
goods,  with  intent  to  injure  his  business  and  thus  to  bring 
him  to  terms. 

Hey  v.  Wilson  (1908).  For  Injunction.  Secondary  or 
Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Unfair  List.  Il- 
legal. Members  of  Team  Drivers'  I.  Union,  on  strike  against 
pi.  for  higher  wages,  appointed,  in  conjunction  with  other  labor 
unions,  a  committee  to  inform  business  men  that  pi.  was  on 
the  unfair  list.  Members  of  the  union  ceased  to  patronize 
him,  as  did  some  of  his  customers.  School  board  was  requested 
not  to  use  pl.'s  auditorium,  but  this  request  was  withdrawn. 
Held  that,  although  no  threats  were  used,  they  were  implied, 
and  that,  if  notices  excite  reasonable  fear,  it  is  immaterial 
whether  or  not  there  are  direct  threats;  that  the  use  of  the 
words  "unfair  list"  was  an  euphemism  for  boycott,  and  the 
action  of  the  defs.  an  invasion  of  the  right  of  another  to  dis- 
pose of  his  own  labor  according  to  his  own  will  and  was  with- 
out justification.  The  legality  of  the  primary  boycott  was,  how- 
ever, declared,  and  it  was  admitted  that  "individuals  may 
agree  among  themselves  that  they  will  not  trade  or  deal  with 
a  certain  person,  and  may  give  notice  to  others  that  they  have 
made  such  an  agreement."     Two  judges  dissented. 

A.  R.  Barnes  and  Co.  v.  Chicago  Typogr.  Union  No.  10 
(1908).  For  Injunction.  Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott 
Involving  Workmen.     Illegal.     Defs.,  on  strike  for  an  8-hr. 


APPENDIX  391 

day  and  closed  shop,  sent  circulars  to  foremen  of  labor  organ- 
izations in  other  establishments,  directing  them  to  endeavor 
to  prevent  workmen  from  working  on  goods  from  pl.'s  shop. 
Held  that  employer,  whose  workmen  have  gone  on  strike,  has 
an  absolute  right  to  fill  their  places  with  other  workmen,  and 
that  any  interference  with  this  right,  whether  by  threats  or  by 
persuasion,  is  a  legal  wrong,  if  accomplished  by  an  act  of 
malice.  Here  the  immediate  purpose  was  to  injure  another. 
The  court  reaffirmed  the  sweeping  injunction  of  the  lower 
court  forbidding  picketing  and  boycotting.  Two  judges  dis- 
sented. 

Mears  Slayton  Lumber  Co.  v.  Dist.  Council  of  Chicago  of 
United  Br.  of  Carpenters  and  Joiners  of  America.  (1910.) 
(111.  App.)  For  Injunction.  Contempt.  Compound  Boycott 
Involving  Patronage.  Illegal.  A  strike  was  called  against 
pi.,  a  manufacturer  of  lumber,  and,  after  injunction  was  is- 
sued, it  was  alleged  that  def.  ordered  strikes  because  material 
of  pi.  was  used.  Held  that,  although  strikes  were  legal,  a 
conspiracy  to  ruin  the  business  of  an  employer  by  means  of 
picketing,  boycotts,  etc.,  is  unlawful,  and  subject  to  an  in- 
junction process. 

Kemp  v.  Div.  No.  241,  etc.  (1910).  (111.  App.)  Civil 
Action.  Compound  Labor  Boycott.  Illegal.  Employees  of 
railroad  threatened  to  strike  unless  those  resigning  from  union 
were  discharged.  Held  that,  when  there  is  no  trade  dispute 
between  employer  and  employee  over  a  matter  of  employment, 
a  strike  for  the  purpose  of  coercing  employer  to  discharge  em- 
ployee and  of  coercing  employee  to  join  a  union  is  an  unlawful 
interference  with  rights  of  both,  and  illegal. 

Indiana 

Boycotts,  whereby  two  or  more  agree  to  stop  the  sale  of 
goods,  are  specifically  condemned  by  statute.  However,  the 
courts  have  held  a  primary  boycott  legal,  by  dicta,  where  no 
threats  were  used.  A  labor  boycott,  unaccompanied  by  threats, 
was  also  declared  legal  by  Indiana  Appeals.     A  trade  boycott, 


392  BOYCOTTS 

where  coercive  means  were  employed  against  a  third  party, 
consisting  in  the  imposition  of  fines,  was  pronounced  illegal. 
Two  boycotts,  not  connected  with  labor  disputes,  were  pro- 
nounced legal  where  no  threats  of  a  reproachful  nature  were 
implied.  A  blacklist,  where  a  worker  was  described  as  "labor 
agitator,"  was  pronounced  legal.  The  highest  courts  have  not 
as  yet  passed  on  a  boycott  case  against  laborers  in  a  labor 
dispute. 

Statutes:  Annotated  St.  of  i894>  Rev.  of  190 1,  Sec.  33 12m, 
entitled  "Boycotting."  Any  person  who  shall  enter  into  an 
arrangement  to  prevent  the  sale  of  any  article  shall  be  guilty 
of  conspiracy  against  trade.  Max.  punishment,  $2,000  and  i 
yr.  The  state  may  collect  $50  a  day  for  violation,  and  the 
injured  party  may  collect  damages  and  cost. 

Jackson  v.  Stanfield  (1894).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boy- 
cott. Illegal.  A  boycott  was  instituted  against  a  broker,  a 
dealer  in  lumber,  and,  in  the  course  of  it,  a  wholesaler,  an 
honorary  member  of  the  retail  association  of  which  def.  was 
member,  was  fined  for  violating  the  rules  in  selling  to  pi. 
Court  held  a  conspiracy  to  prevent  the  carrying  on  of  a  law- 
ful business  by  preventing  those  who  would  be  customers  from 
buying  anything,  by  threats  and  intimidation,  was  in  restraint  of 
trade,  and  that  the  imposition  of  penalties  here  constituted 
intimidation  and  coercion;  further,  that  a  primary  boycott  was 
legal  where  no  threats  were  used. 

Clemmitt  v.  Watson  (1895).  (Ind.  App.)  Civil  Action. 
Labor  Boycott.  Legal.  Workmen  in  coal  mine  agreed  to 
stop  work  if  fellow  workman  was  not  discharged.  Court  held 
legal;  that  each  individually  had  right  to  quit,  and  that  all 
could  so  quit  if  action  was  taken  without  threats,  violence,  etc. 

Guethler  v.  Altman  (1901).  (Ind.  App.)  Civil  Action. 
Boycott  of  Store  by  Teacher.  Legal.  Teacher  persuaded 
pupils  not  to  patronize  a  certain  storekeeper  by  threats  and 
otherwise,  although  nothing  of  a  reproachful  nature  was 
implied.  Held  that  the  teacher  was  exercising  her  right,  and 
the  existence  of  malice  did  not  make  the  action  illegal. 

Wabash   Railroad   Co.   v.   Young    (1904).     Civil   Action. 


APPENDIX  393 

Blacklist.  Legal.  Def.,  in  response  to  a  request,  sent  letters 
to  other  railroads,  describing  pi.  as  a  labor  agitator.  Held 
that  complaint  did  not  describe  or  allege  such  malicious  inter- 
ference with  the  business  of  the  appellee  as  to  create  a  liability 
at  common  law. 

Karges  Furniture  Co.  v.  Amal.  Woodworkers'  Local  Union 
(1905).  Strike.  Legal.  Dicta  Holding  Peaceful  Boycott 
Legal.  Held  that  one  could  persuade  others  to  cease  to 
patronize  a  third  party,  and  what  one  may  do  singly  all  may 
do  in  concert. 

Rowan  v.  Butler  (1908).  Civil  Action.  Secondary  Boy- 
cott Involving  Patronage.  (Not  in  labor  dispute.)  Legal. 
Governor  of  a  Soldiers'  Home,  as  a  result  of  an  agreement  with 
others,  issued  an  order  that  the  inmates  cease  their  purchasing 
from  pl.'s  rest.  Held  that  governor  had  the  right  to  do  this 
singly,  and  that  his  act  was  not  unlawful  because  he  agreed 
with  others. 

Iowa 

Statute  with  application  doubtful.  No  court  decisions  in 
highest  court. 

Statutes:  Code,  1897,  Sec.  5059.  Act  declares  conspiracy, 
with  fraudulent  and  malicious  intent  wrongfully  to  injure  a 
person  in  his  business,  character  or  person,  illegal.  (Applica- 
tion doubtful.) 

Funck  V.  Farmers'  Elevator  Co.,  of  Gowrie  (1909).  Trade 
Boycott.  Illegal.  This  was  an  action  in  mandamus  to  secure 
a  transfer  of  stocks.  Def.  was  an  organization  of  farmers  in 
Gowrie  to  buy  and  sell  produce,  lumber  and  coal.  This  asso- 
ciation was  boycotted  by  the  regular  dealers,  who  even  estab- 
lished a  system  of  espionage,  and  threatened  dealers  having 
anything  to  do  with  the  corporation.  One  of  agents  of  regular 
dealers  bought  stock,  and  sought  to  have  it  transferred.  Farm- 
ers refused.  Court  held  that  he  was  not  entitled  to  equitable 
aid  and  that  conspiracy  to  injure  one's  trade  or  business,  by 
preventing  any  one  from  doing  business  with  him  through  fear 


394  BOYCOTTS 

of  incurring  the  displeasure,  persecution  or  vengeance  of  the 
conspirator,  is  unlawful. 

Kansas 

Various  acts  against  interfering  with  business  by  intimida- 
tion, etc.     No  decision  noted  in  highest  court. 

Statutes:  Gen.  St.  1905,  Sec.  2481.  Act  makes  it  unlaw- 
ful for  any  person  maliciously  by  any  act  or  by  intimidation 
to  interfere  or  conspire  to  interfere  with  lawful  business. 
(Application  doubtful.)  Gen.  St.  1901,  Sec.  «2375,  entitled 
"Intimidation,"  etc.  Act  makes  it  illegal  wilfully  and  ma- 
liciously by  any  act  or  by  intimidation  to  impede  or  obstruct 
the  regular  conduct  of  a  business.  Sec.  2376,  entitled  "Con- 
spiracy." Act  makes  it  illegal  wilfully  and  maliciously  to 
combine  for  such  a  purpose.  Punishment,  $20  to  $200,  or  20 
to  90  days. 

Michigan 

Intimidation  of  employees  is  made  illegal  by  statutes.  Courts 
have  declared  boycotts  illegal  wherein  threats  are  used  against 
employees,  and  threats  of  loss  of  trade  against  patrons.  A 
trade  boycott  was  also  declared  illegal.  Those  cases  connected 
with  labor  disputes  involved  injunction  and  contempt. 

Statutes:  Compiled  laws  of  1897,  Sec.  11343,  entitled  "In- 
timidation of  Employees."  Act  makes  illegal  interference  of 
employees  by  threats,  intimidation  or  otherwise,  in  their  lawful 
employment.  Punishment,  $10  to  $100,  or  i  mo.  to  i  yr.,  or 
both. 

Beck  et  al.  v.  Railway  Teamsters*  Union  et  al.  (1898). 
For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage. 
Circulars  Issued.  Illegal.  Defs.  struck  against  pis.,  owners 
of  Cereal  Mills,  for  closed  shop;  issued  circulars  asking  pa- 
trons to  boycott  pis.;  threatened  customers  with  boycott;  col- 
lected around  door  of  mill,  and  drove  away  truckmen.  Held 
that  use  of  threats  which  tend  to  overcome  the  will  of  others 
through  fear  of  loss  of  property  is  illegal,  and  that  when  their 


APPENDIX  395 

accomplishment  will  result  in  irreparable  injury,  an  injunction 
will  issue.  A  libel,  when  accompanied  by  threats,  may  also  be 
enjoined. 

U.  S.  Heater  Co.  v.  Iron  Moulders'  Union  of  Am.  (1902). 
For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Il- 
legal. Held  that  a  labor  organization  could  be  enjoined  from 
interfering  with  or  intimidating  pi.  in  his  employment. 

Enterprise  Foundry  Co.  v.  Iron  Moulders'  Union  (1907). 
For  Injunction.  Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott  Involving 
Patronage  and  Workmen.  Contempt.  Illegal.  This  was  a 
suit  to  restrain  unionists  from  persuading  or  threatening  one 
who  furnished  meals  and  supplies  to  non-union  employees  to 
break  contracts,  and  from  denouncing  and  intimidating  em- 
ployees. Injunction  was  granted.  Def.  was  convicted  of  con- 
tempt for  violating  it. 

Ideal  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Ludwig  (1907).  For  Injunc- 
tion. Contempt.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage 
and  Workmen.  Illegal.  Workers  struck  against  pi.  to  obtain 
closed  shop.  Injunction  was  issued  prohibiting  workers  from 
molesting  patrons  by  distribution  of  circulars  or  otherwise, 
for  the  purpose  of  inducing  them  to  cease  patronage.  Presi- 
dent of  union  was  declared  by  court  to  have  violated  the 
injunction. 

Baldwin  v.  Escanaba  Liquor  Dealers'  Ass'n  (191 1).  For 
Injunction.  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal.  Def.  tried  to  induce 
third  parties  to  take  advertising  away  from  pi.,  a  newspaper 
owner,  and  to  withdraw  printing.  Held  illegal.  Contains 
definition  of  boycott. 

Minnesota 

Interference  with  employment  by  threats,  etc.,  is  declared 
illegal  by  statute.  The  court  has  decided  that  that  form  of 
boycott  is  illegal  and  subject  to  injunction  in  which  third 
parties  are  threatened  with  withdrawal  of  labor  should  they 
continue  business  relations  with  others,  where  there  are  no 
contract  or  other  relations  between  boycotters  and  such  third 
party;    that  laborers  can  issue  ''unfair  lists,"  and  circularize 


396  BOYCOTTS 

them  among  customers  of  the  boycotted  firm,  provided,  how- 
ever, there  is  no  threat  involved.  A  trade  boycott,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  which  members  were  coerced  into  refusing 
business  relations  with  third  parties  by  means  of  fines  and 
expulsion,  was  declared  legal  on  the  ground  that  coercive 
measures  could  not  be  spelled  out,  and  that  malice  could  not 
be  considered.  The  distinction  made  in  the  two  cases  was 
that  in  the  trade  boycott  only  the  members  of  the  association 
were  told  of  the  action  of  the  pi.,  and  not  outsiders.  The 
court  has  also  held  that  representatives  of  unions  cannot  be 
enjoined  from  going  on  premises  of  boycotted  firm,  and  order- 
ing men  to  quit  work,  where  owner  of  premises  doesn't  object. 
Trade  boycotts  which  serve  no  legitimate  interest,  and  black- 
lists, malicious  in  their  nature,  have  also  been  pronounced  ac- 
tionable in  damages. 

Statutes:  Rev.  Laws,  1905,  Sec.  1822,  entitled  "Interfer- 
ence." Act  holds  illegal  interference  with  employment  of  one 
because  he  has  taken  part  in  a  strike.  (Applies  chiefly  to 
Blacklist.)  Min.  Punishment,  $25,  or  15  days.  Sec.  4867, 
entitled  "Conspiracy — Interference  with  Employment."  Pro- 
hibits conspiracy  of  two  or  more  to  interfere  with  another  in 
the  exercise  of  his  lawful  trade,  through  force,  threats,  or 
intimidation.  Sec.  5140,  entitled  "Coercion  of  Worklngmen, 
Interference  with  Employment."  Act  declares  a  misdemeanor 
coercion  of  another  through  threats,  force,  and  intimidation, 
to  compel  him  to  do  or  abstain  from  doing  lawful  act.  Sec. 
5168.  St.  against  trusts  and  combinations  may  be  so  extended 
as  to  apply  to  trade  boycotts. 

Bohn  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Hollls  (1893).  For  Injunc- 
tion. Primary  or  Compound.  Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  In 
1890  one-half  of  the  lumber  dealers  in  la.,  Minn.,  Neb.,  and 
the  Dakotas  combined  in  an  association  known  as  the  N.  W. 
Lumbermen's  Ass'n,  with  headquarters  at  St.  Paul.  The  mem- 
bers agreed  that  if  any  of  them  sold  lumber  to  a  dealer  not  a 
member  of  the  association,  residing  in  a  town  where  a  mem- 
ber conducted  business,  he  would  have  to  pay  a  commission  to 
such  member  within  30  days,  amounting  to  10  per  cent,  of  his 


APPENDIX  397 

sales.  PL,  who  sold  lumber  to  outsiders,  refused  to  pay  com- 
mission, and  sought  an  injunction.  Injunction  refused.  Court 
declared  that  any  man  can  refuse  to  deal  with  any  class  of 
men  as  he  sees  fit  unless  under  contract  obligation.  That 
combination  does  not  make  such  act  illegal;  that  the  pro- 
vision in  the  ass'n's  by-laws  that  any  member  dealing  with  pi. 
would  be  expelled,  unless  he  paid  commission  prescribed,  did 
not  constitute  intimidation;  that  an  action  in  general  restraint 
of  trade  could  not  be  brought  at  the  instance  of  third  parties, 
and  that  motive  does  not  make  a  legal  act  illegal. 

Ertz  V.  Produce  Exchange  (1900).  Civil  Action.  Trade 
Boycott.  Illegal.  PL,  a  commission  merchant  in  Minneapolis, 
claimed  he  was  unable  to  deal  in  farm  products  as  a  result  of 
agreement  of  members  of  the  Produce  Ex.,  and  that  he  had 
been  damaged  to  extent  of  $25,000.  Held  that  those  having 
no  legitimate  interests  to  protect  may  not  lawfully  injure 
business  of  another  by  maliciously  inducing  others  not  to  deal 
with  him;  case  distinguished  from  Bohn  on  the  ground  of 
legitimate  interest. 

Gray  v.  Building  Trades  Council  et  al.  (1903).  For  In- 
junction. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal. 
Unfair  List.  Legal,  if  No  Threats.  Pis.  were  electrical  con- 
tractors in  Minneapolis.  Defs.,  on  strike,  threatened  Minne- 
apolis Industrial  and  Amusement  Ass'n  with  withdrawal  of 
union  men  working  on  the  construction  of  booths,  should  they 
contract  with  pis.,  and  made  a  similar  threat  to  the  proprietor 
of  the  Brunswick  Hotel.  Held  that  this  was  an  interference 
with  the  property  rights  of  others,  and  that  when  labor  resorts 
to  unlawful  means  to  cause  injury  to  others  with  whom  it  has 
no  relation,  contractual  or  otherwise,  it  will  be  restrained; 
that  defs.  used  threats  and  intimidation,  and  that  these  are 
necessary  elements  of  boycotts.  Labor,  however,  cannot  be 
restrained  from  merely  notifying  customers  or  prospective  cus- 
tomers that  certain  firms  are  on  unfair  list  because  of  their 
employment  of  non-union  labor,  unless  such  acts  are  intended 
as  threat  or  intimidation.  Nor  can  representatives  of  labor 
be  enjoined  from  going  on  premises  where  firms  on  unfair  list 


398 


BOYCOTTS 


are  located,  and  ordering  men  to  quit  work,  where  owner  of 
premises  doesn't  object. 

Joyce  V.  Great  Northern  Railway  Co.  (1907).  Civil  Ac- 
tion. Blacklist.  Illegal.  Action  against  defendant  for  agree- 
ing with  other  employer  to  prevent  third  person  from  securing 
employment.  PL  was  injured  by  engine  of  def.  and,  on  the 
regaining  of  pl.'s  health,  def.  induced  pl.'s  employer,  a  depot 
company,  to  refuse  employment  unless  he  released  them  from 
liability.  Held  actionable  as  violative  of  Rev.  Laws  1905, 
Sec.  5097,  against  blacklists;  that  defs.  acted  jvith  malice  and 
not  with  justification,  the  employment  not  having  been  denied 
because  of  incompetency. 

Tuttle  V.  Buck  (1909).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott. 
Illegal.  Def.,  a  wealthy  banker  of  Howard  Lake,  set  up 
barber  store  for  purpose  of  injuring  pi.,  an  established  barber, 
and  not  for  any  gain  to  himself.  Held  illegal  to  start  an 
opposition  place  of  business  for  sole  purpose  of  driving  com- 
petitor out  of  business  regardless  of  loss  to  himself,  and  with 
intention  of  withdrawing  when  other  was  driven  out;  that 
this  is  an  application  of  force  without  legal  justification,  and 
that  an  act,  lawful  when  actuated  by  one  set  of  motives,  may 
be  unlawful  when  actuated  by  another  set. 

Missouri 

Intimidation  of  employees  is  forbidden  by  statute.  Courts 
have  held  that  a  boycott  involving  the  coercion  of  customers 
by  means  of  threats  of  strike,  etc.,  can  be  enjoined,  although 
the  publication  of  such  boycott  might  not  be  enjoined.  Such 
publication,  however,  might  be  subject  to  criminal  or  civil 
suit.  A  labor  boycott,  involving  threats  of  strike  and  extor- 
tion, has  been  held  actionable  in  damages.  A  boycott,  not  in 
a  labor  dispute,  where  expelled  member  of  an  association  was 
boycotted  because  of  misconduct,  and  not  because  of  non-mem- 
bership, has  been  held  legal. 

Statutes:  Rev.  St.  1899,  Sec.  2155,  Act  entitled  "Intimi- 
dation of  Employees — Interference  with  Employment."     Act 


APPENDIX  399 

makes  illegal  Interference  with  employment  by  force,  menace 
or  threats  of  violence.  Min.  punishment  three  or  six  months, 
or  $50  or  $100,  or  both. 

Hunt  V.  Simonds  (1854).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott. 
Legal.  Insurance  agents  conspired  to  refuse  to  place  insurance 
on  pl.'s  vessel.  Held  that  it  must  be  shown  that  acts  which 
the  def.  agreed  to  do  were  illegal,  in  order  to  warrant  recov- 
ery;  that  existence  of  malice  did  not  make  combination  illegal. 

Hamilton  Brown  Shoe  Co.  v.  Saxey  (1895).  For  Injunc- 
tion. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  At- 
tempt was  made  by  def.  to  force  employees  to  quit  work  and 
join  the  union  strike.  Held  that  when  acts  were  accompanied 
by  intimidation,  etc.,   injunction  would  issue. 

Marx  &  Haas  Jeans  Clothing  Co.  v.  Watson  et  al.  (1902). 
For  Injunction.  Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott  Involving 
Patronage.  Not  Enjoinable.  Defs.,  garment  workers  of  St. 
Louis,  on  strike  against  pis.,  manufacturers  of  jeans,  clothing 
and  pants,  visited  customers  and  endeavored  to  persuade  them 
to  cease  dealing  with  pis.,  in  some  cases  threatening  them  with 
loss  of  business  unless  they  acceded  to  demands,  but  in  no 
cases  threatening  physical  violence.  Pis.  claimed  that  damage 
would  amount  to  $10,000,  unless  injunction  issued.  Held 
injunction  would  not  issue  where  there  is  no  intimidation 
through  fear  of  personal  violence  or  of  destruction  of  prop- 
erty, but  only  the  mere  abstaining  from  business  relations  and 
the  persuading  of  others  to  do  likewise;  that  issuance  of  an 
injunction  would  mean  the  denial  of  the  right  of  free  speech 
guaranteed  by  the  constitution,  and  would  prevent  workmen 
from  telling  the  story  of  their  supposed  wrongs.  It  added 
that  the  impecunious  character  of  defs.  constituted  no  argu- 
ment for  an  injunction.    A  civil  action,  however,  might  lie. 

Walsh  V.  Association  of  Master  Plumbers  (1902).  (St. 
Louis  App.)  For  Injunction.  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal.  Mas- 
ter Plumbers'  Ass'n  agreed  with  certain  dealers  and  manu- 
facturers that  the  latter  should  deal  exclusively  with  members, 
and  that  members  should  boycott  dealers  who  sold  to  non- 
members.     Held  that  this  agreement  was  illegal  and  void,  and 


400  BOYCOTTS 

could  be  restrained.  It  violated  Rev.  St.  1899,  Ch.  143,  Art. 
2,  Sec.  8979,  declaring  against  the  regulating  of  prices  or  con- 
trol or  limiting  of  trade;  that  it  also  contravened  Sec.  8982 
relative  to  pools. 

Gladish  V.  Bridgeford  (1905).  (Kansas  City  App.) 
For  Injunction.  Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  Members  of  an 
ass'n  refused  to  have  further  dealings  v^^ith  another  w^ho  was 
expelled  from  membership  because  he  was  found  guilty  of  mis- 
conduct. Held  that  no  injunction  w^ould  issue,  inasmuch  as 
the  pi.  vi^as  boycotted  because  he  was  found  guilty,  and  not 
because  he  was  not  a  member. 

Carter  v.  Oster  (1908).  (St.  Louis  App.)  Civil  Action. 
Labor  Boycott.  Illegal.  Delegate  of  Ass'n  of  Steam  and  Hot 
Water  Fitters  of  Am.  notified  employer  of  Carter,  the  pi., 
who  worked  in  the  Mo.  Heating  and  Const.  Co.,  to  discharge 
pi.,  and  fined  the  firm  the  sum  of  $200,  the  men  quitting 
work  until  fine  was  paid.  It  was  alleged  that  the  union 
secured  pl.'s  discharge  in  other  places,  threatening  strikes,  and 
afterwards  prevented  him  from  conducting  business  on  a  com- 
mission basis.  Held  that  the  means  used,  threats  of  strikes 
and  extortion,  were  illegal,  malicious  and  oppressive. 

Burke  v.  Fay  (1908).  (Ct.  of  App.)  Civil  Action. 
Coerce  Employer  to  Discharge  Non-Union  Men  by  Fines. 
(Not  generally  considered  boycott.)  Unions  imposed  $200 
fine  on  master  plumber  for  breach  of  agreement  to  employ 
only  union  men.  Held  that  he  could  recover  such  fine,  and 
that  imposition  of  it  constituted  coercion. 

Lohse  Patent  Door  Co.  v.  Fuelle  et  al.  (1908).  For  In- 
junction. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal. 
Defs.,  members  of  the  U.  Br.  of  Carpenters  and  Joiners,  struck 
against  pis.,  manufacturer  of  sashes,  etc.,  for  employing  non- 
union men,  and  instituted  boycott  against  pis.  and  against  those 
purchasing  material  from  them;  followed  pis.'  wagons,  issued 
circulars,  and  in  some  instances  called  strikes  on  pis.'  patrons. 
They  were  charged  with  impairing  business  to  the  extent  of 
$io,0(X).     Held  illegal  as  combination  to  injure  trade  of  one. 


APPENDIX  401 

by  threatening  to  produce  injury  to  those  dealing  with  him, 
and  having  for  their  direct  object  injury  of  another. 

Differs  from  Marx  and  Haas  Case,  as  it  enjoins  the  boycott 
itself,  instead  of  the  publication  thereof. 

Nebraska 
No  Statute  Relating  Thereto.     No  Decisions. 

Ohio 

Statute  against  restraint  of  trade  has  been  held  applicable. 
Thus  far  the  court  of  last  resort  has  not  passed  on  the  ques- 
tion of  boycotts  in  labor  disputes.  Injunctions  have  issued 
from  lower  courts  enjoining  boycotters  from  using  threats  of 
loss  of  property  against  third  parties,  and  even  from  persuad- 
ing third  parties  to  cease  their  patronage,  if  the  object  is  mali- 
cious or  unlawful,  or  if  a  trespass  is  involved.  Injunctions 
have,  however,  been  denied  in  the  Superior  Court  against  the 
issuance  of  boycotting  circulars,  although  it  has  been  intimated 
that  these  might  be  stopped  through  criminal  or  civil  pro- 
cedure. Compound  boycotts  have  been  subject  to  civil  action. 
Coercing  a  third  party  to  withdraw  patronage  through  fear  of 
loss  of  business  has  also  been  held  criminal  by  a  police  court. 
Blacklists  entailing  an  agreement  to  refuse  a  statement  of  em- 
ployment have  been  declared  legal  by  the  Supreme  Court,  al- 
though a  more  general  blacklist  was  previously  pronounced 
illegal  by  one  of  the  Courts  of  Common  Pleas. 

Statute:  Act  of  April  19,  1898,  in  930  L.  143.  Act  pro- 
vides against  combination  to  restrain  trade. 

N.  Y.  L.  E.  and  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Wenger  (1887).  For 
Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  (Tres- 
pass.) Illegal.  Court  issued  injunction  to  prevent  striking 
employees  of  railroad  companies  from  going  on  premises  for 
purpose  of  causing  other  employees,  either  by  threats,  intimi- 
dation, or  request,  to  quit  work,  since  such  action  would  con- 
stitute a  trespass  for  which  the  law  affords  no  adequate  remedy. 

Parker  v.  Bricklayers'   Union  No.    i    (1889).      (Common 


402  BOYCOTTS 

Pleas.)  Civil  Action.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patron- 
age and  Workmen.  Illegal.  Held  that  members  of  trade 
unions  were  liable  for  damages  caused  by  a  general  boycott 
declared  against  a  contractor  in  which  workmen  were  induced 
to  quit  time  contracts  and  dealers  in  building  materials  were 
coerced  into  refusing  to  deal  with  contractor,  and  in  which 
persons  with  whom  contractor  had  contracts  for  work  and 
material  were  induced  to  break  them.  Trade  unions  and  its 
members  were  also  held  liable  in  damages  for  false  circulars 
charging  pi.  with  employing  inferior  scab  labar  in  his  business. 

Richter  v.  Journeymen  Tailors'  Union  (1890)  (Lower 
Court).  For  Injunction.  Libelous  circulars.  Not  Enjoined. 
Defs.,  on  strike,  placed  on  walls,  buildings,  and  bulletin  boards 
in  vicinity  of  pl.'s  business  posters  stating  that  public  should 
shun  "scab"  shop,  and  sent  letters  to  the  public,  alleged  to 
contain  libelous  statements.  Held  that  court  of  equity  had  no 
jurisdiction  to  enjoin  libel. 

Moores  &  Co.  v.  Bricklayers'  Union  (1890).  (Cinn. 
Super.  Ct.)  For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving 
Patronage.  Illegal.  Unions  struck  against  one  Parker,  a  con- 
tractor, for  refusing  to  pay  fine  of  workman  and  to  reinstate 
another.  Def.  Bricklayers'  Union  issued  a  circular  threaten- 
ing that  its  members  would  not  work  on  material  supplied  by 
any  one  who  continued  to  sell  to  Parker  Brothers.  PI.  dis- 
obeyed notice  and  was  subjected  to  great  loss.  Parker  Bros, 
had  recovered  damages  and  pi.  had  been  awarded  $2,250  dam- 
ages. This  award  was  affirmed  by  Judge  Taft,  and  defs.  were 
enjoined  from  refusing  to  work  on  pl.'s  material  wherever  it 
was  supplied  them,  when  intention  of  such  action  was  to  force 
employers  against  their  will  to  cease  to  purchase  from  pi. 
The  immediate  motive,  that  of  injury,  was  malicious,  as  there 
was  no  relation  between  pi.  and  def.  to  justify  such  injury. 

Mattison  v.  Lake  Shore  and  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
(1895).  (Ct.  of  Com.  Pleas,  Lucas  Co.)  Civil  Action. 
Blacklist.  Illegal.  Railroad  companies  were  charged  with 
combining  for  purpose  of  preventing  the  employment  by  each 
other  of  discharged  employees.     Held  companies  were  liable 


APPENDIX  403 

to  those  who  were  prevented  from  procuring  work,  as  the 
right  of  a  man  to  seek  employment  in  any  honest  work  shall 
not  be  interfered  with. 

Riggs  V.  Waiters'  Alliance  Local  No.  58  et  al.  (1898). 
(Cinn.  Super.  Ct.)  For  Injunction.  Distribution  of  Libelous 
Circulars.  Not  Enjoinable.  Waiters,  on  strike,  displayed 
placards  and  distributed  circulars  in  front  of,  and  in  the  vicin- 
ity of,  pl.'s  premises,  which  stated  that  pi.  was  on  the  unfair 
list,  and  requested  customers  not  to  patronize  him.  Circulars 
were  alleged  to  be  libelous.  Held  that  acts  could  not  be  en- 
joined on  the  ground  that  they  were  a  nuisance,  as  the  public 
highway  was  not  obstructed,  and  that  equity  will  not  inter- 
fere by  injunction  to  restrain  publication  or  circularization  of 
a  libel.  "Where  the  gist  of  the  injury  is  purely  personal,  as, 
for  instance,  in  cases  of  a  libel,  the  fact  that  it  may  be  in- 
jurious to  property  does  not  give  the  court  jurisdiction."  To 
restrain  this  libel  would  be  to  interfere  with  freedom  of  speech 
and  liberty  of  the  press.  Abuse  of  this  right  may  only  be 
punished  criminally  or  subject  the  offender  to  civil  suit  for 
damages. 

State  V.  E.  C.  Jacobs  (1899).  (Police  Court  of  Cleve- 
land.) Criminal  Conspiracy.  Compound  Boycott  Involving 
Patronage.  Illegal.  Motorman  def.,  on  strike  against  Cleve- 
land Electric  Ry.  Co.,  declared  that  Reynolds,  who  sold  ice 
cream  to  the  "scabs,"  would  be  boycotted  if  he  continued, 
and  also  threatened  Schindler,  who  supplied  Reynolds  with 
the  ice  cream,  with  a  similar  boycott,  should  he  not  cease 
dealings  with  Reynolds.  Held  that  the  act  of  April  19,  1898, 
in  930  L.  143,  applied  to  boycotts,  on  the  ground  that  they 
restrict  trade  by  means  of  fear  of  injury  to  business  or  prop- 
erty. 

The  Dayton  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Metal  Polishers',  etc.. 
Union  No.  5  (1901).  (Ohio  Com.  Pleas.)  For  Injunction. 
Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Working  on  Pl.'s 
Materials.  Illegal.  Dayton  manufacturer  in  car  trimmings, 
etc.,  employing  150  men,  discharged  17  buffers.  Union  com- 
mittees  stated    to   other  establishments   that   the   latter's   em- 


404  BOYCOTTS 

ployees  would  not  be  permitted  to  work  on  any  material  sup- 
plied by  pi.,  although  they  were  afterwards  allowed  to  place 
union  men  at  work  on  this  material.  Held  that  equity  will 
enjoin  use  of  threats  against  patrons  of  pi.,  if  those  threats 
overcome  their  will  through  fear  of  loss  of  property,  and  that 
mere  persuasion  will  also  be  enjoined,  when  its  end  is  mali- 
cious or  unlawful.  It  is  legal,  however,  for  organizations  to 
present  their  cause  to  the  public  in  a  peaceful  way  and  with  no 
attempt  at  coercion. 

N.  Y.  C.  Street  Railway  Co.  v.  SchafEer  j;i902).  Black- 
list. Legal.  Here  held  legal  to  agree  not  to  employ  persons 
who  had  been  on  strike,  and  to  refuse  to  give  discharged  em- 
ployees a  statement  of  employment. 

Wisconsin 

Acts  make  illegal  combination  to  injure  business  maliciously, 
or  to  interfere  with  employment  by  unlawful  means.  Highest 
courts  have  not  passed  on  boycotting  in  labor  disputes,  except- 
ing in  one  case  of  a  labor  boycott,  where  courts  have  held, 
obiter  dicta,  that  interference  with  employees  by  force,  etc., 
gives  right  of  action.  In  the  three  trade  boycotts  cited,  all 
were  declared  illegal  on  the  ground  of  malice  or  monopoly. 
One  of  these  was  of  a  criminal  nature.  Courts  have  recog- 
nized malice  and  combination  as  elements  in  torts.  The 
decision  regarding  the  legality  of  boycotts  would,  in  all  prob- 
ability, be  an  adverse  one. 

Statutes:  Annotated  St.  of  1898,  Sec.  4466a,  entitled, 
"Combining  to  Injure  Business,"  etc.  Act  makes  illegal  com- 
bination of  two  or  more  persons  maliciously  to  injure  another 
in  his  reputation  or  business,  by  any  means,  or  maliciously  to 
compel  him  against  his  will  to  perform  or  not  to  perform  any 
lawful  act.  Max.  punishment,  $500,  or  i  yr.  Sec.  4466c, 
entitled  "Interfering  with  Employment,"  makes  illegal  inter- 
ference with  employment  by  force,  threats,  or  intimidation. 
Max.  punishment,  $100,  or  6  mos.,  or  both. 

Gatzow   V.   Buening    (1900).    Civil  Action.    Trade   Boy- 


APPENDIX  405 

cott.  Involving  Element  of  Monopoly.  Illegal.  Liverymen's 
Ass'n  prohibited  members  from  doing  business  with  any  per- 
son who  did  not  deal  exclusively  with  members  of  the  associa- 
tion, and  from  letting  a  hearse  to  a  person  for  a  funeral  when 
the  undertaker  in  charge  patronized  non-union  men.  Held 
an  attempt  to  monopolize  business  and  stifle  competition,  and 
illegal  as  against  public  policy. 

Hawarden  V.  Youghiogheney  (1901).  Civil  Action.  Trade 
Boycott.  Illegal.  Retail  dealer  in  coal  charged  wholesaler 
with  refusing  to  sell  him  coal  because  he  was  not  a  member 
of  a  certain  combination.  The  defs.-  owned  practically  all  of 
the  docks  in  that  vicinity,  near  Duluth.  Held  illegal  for  a 
combination  to  refuse  to  sell  goods  to  another  with  the  purpose 
of  injuring  that  other,  and  not  to  benefit  themselves.  It  is 
legal  for  an  individual  to  attract  to  himself  another's  cus- 
tomers with  malicious  motives,  or  for  a  combination  thus  to 
act  to  promote  their  own  welfare. 

The  State  ex  rel.  Burner  v.  Huegin  (1901).  Criminal 
Conspiracy.  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal.  Defs.,  owners  of  news- 
papers, agreed  that,  if  advertisers  paid  to  another  newspaper, 
out  of  the  combination,  the  increased  rate  charged,  they  would 
be  compelled  to  pay  such  increased  rates  to  defs.  Held  a 
conspiracy  to  inflict  malicious  injury  upon  another,  and  action- 
able; that  malice  and  combination  may  make  illegal  otherwise 
legal  acts,  and  that  fact  that  ultimate  object  of  the  combina- 
tion was  beneficial  was  no  defense. 

Badger  Brass  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Daly  (1909).  Civil 
Action.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Illegal. 
Metal  Polishers  and  Silver  Workers'  Union  in  Kenosha,  on 
strike,  interfered  with  other  workmen,  and  destruction  of 
trade  was  threatened.  Held  that,  if  a  laborer  is  prevented  by 
his  fellows  from  working,  it  usually  gives  cause  of  action  to 
laborer  alone,  and  that  an  employer  can  sue  only  when  his 
workmen  are  coerced  or  induced  to  break  an  existing  con- 
tract, or  where  the  laborers  are  prevented  by  conspiracy  from 
accepting  employment  of  employer,  in  which  case  there  is  an 


4o6  BOYCOTTS 

actionable  interference  with  right  of  employer  to  carry  on  his 
lawful  business. 

COURT  DECISIONS   ON  BOYCOTTS   IN  SOUTH 
ATLANTIC  AND   SOUTH   CENTRAL   STATES 

There  have  been  no  decisions  on  boycotts  in  any  form,  as 
far  as  can  be  learned,  in  courts  of  last  appeal^in  Alabama  and 
Florida.  There  have  been  no  adjudicated  cases  of  boycott 
relating  to  labor  disputes  in  highest  courts  in  Kentucky, 
Mississippi,  Oklahoma,  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Texas,  or 
West  Virginia. 

From  other  decisions,  it  seems  probable  that  the  Kentucky 
courts  would  pronounce  a  boycott  illegal  if  accompanied  by 
threats  of  loss  of  business;  the  Mississippi  courts,  if  coercion 
or  malice  was  present ;  the  South  Carolina  and  West  Virginia 
courts,  if  malice  could  be  spelled  out.  It  is  reported  that  a 
lower  court  in  Oklahoma  has  declared  a  secondary  boycott 
legal.  In  Tennessee  and  Texas,  if  the  judges  could  be  con- 
vinced of  the  legitimate  interest,  on  the  part  of  the  workers, 
to  boycott,  the  use  of  this  weapon  would  probably  be  per- 
mitted, although  the  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  judges  is 
doubtful. 

The  issuance  of  an  unfair  list,  which  threatened  third  par- 
ties with  loss  of  labor,  was  held  not  to  constitute  a  crime  in 
No.  Carolina. 

The  Arkansas  court  pronounced  legal  refusal  to  work  for 
one  doing  business  with  an  employer  of  non-union  men,  where 
no  "official  boycott"  was  declared. 

The  Virginia  court  has  held  the  boycott  illegal  when  ac- 
companied by  threats  of  loss  of  business.  A  Louisiana  court 
pronounced  a  labor  boycott,  accompanied  by  threats,  illegal, 
and  trade  boycotts  legal  where  a  legitimate  interest  was  to 
be  protected. 


APPENDIX  407 

Alabama 

Sweeping  statutes  against  boycotting  by  name  and  other- 
wise.    No  decisions  in  highest  courts  on  this  subject. 

Statutes:  Code,  1907,  Sec.  6396,  entitled  "Boycotting," 
makes  it  illegal  for  any  person  to  print  or  circulate  any  notice 
of  boycott,  unfair  list,  etc.,  or  publish  or  declare  that  a  boycott 
or  ban  exists,  or  is  contemplated,  against  any  person.  Sec. 
6397,  entitled  "Threats,  etc.,"  makes  illegal  any  intimidation 
to  prevent  a  person  from  engaging  in  any  lawful  occupation. 
Sec.  6394,  entitled  "Conspiracy,"  makes  illegal  a  conspiracy 
of  two  or  more  persons  to  prevent  or  interfere  with  the  carry- 
ing on  of  a  lawful  business.  Punishment,  $50  to  $500,  or 
not  to  exceed  60  days. 

Florida 

Sweeping  statutes  against  labor  boycotts  when  accompanied 
by  intimidation,  etc.      (Word  "boycott"  not  used.) 

Statutes:  Gen.  St.  1906,  Sec.  3515,  entitled  "Conspiracy 
against  Workingmen."  Act  makes  illegal  any  combination  of 
two  or  more  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  person  from  pro- 
curing or  continuing  work,  or  any  threat  of  injury  to  firm 
unless  person  is  discharged  or  not  employed.  Max.  punish- 
ment, $500,  or  one  year. 

Chipley  v.  Atkinson  (1887).  Civil  Action.  Elements  of 
Blacklist,  Illegal.  Def.  induced  employer  to  discharge  em- 
ployee. Court  held  actionable,  and  that  the  fact  that  employee 
had  no  rights  against  employer  did  not  take  away  his  rights 
against  a  third  person. 

Arkansas 

There  is  no  statute  bearing  directly  on  boycotts.  Refusal 
to  work  on  structure  laid  by  non-union  men,  or  handle  ma- 
terial of  non-unionists,  has  been  held  to  be  legal  by  court. 

Statutes:  Digest  of  1904,  Sec.  5030,  as  amended  by  Act 
298  of  Acts  of  1905,  entitled  "Interfering  with  or  Enticing 


4o8  BOYCOTTS 

Employee."  Act  makes  illegal  enticing  employee,  who  has 
contracted  with  another,  to  leave  his  employer.  (Application 
doubtful.)  Max.  punishment,  $ioo,  and  advances  made  by 
employer. 

Meier  V.  Speer  (1910).  Civil  Action.  Compound  Boycott 
Involving  Patronage.  Legal.  (If  no  official  action.)  (Boycott 
paper  illegal.)  Stone  masons  refused  to  work  on  building 
whose  superstructure  was  laid  by  non-union  men,  and  brick- 
layers refused  to  handle  material  secured  from  non-union  con- 
cern. There  was  no  evidence  of  the  declaration  of  any  official 
boycott,  or  threats.  Held  legal,  where  these  provisions  are 
in  rules  of  union.  Intimidation  and  coercion  were  declared  es- 
sential elements  of  boycotts.  Court  claimed  that  every  man 
has  a  right  to  dispose  of  his  labor  as  he  chooses,  as  long  as 
his  action  does  not  contravene  any  duty  to  the  public  or  inter- 
fere with  legal  rights  of  others,  and  that  appellants  can  law- 
fully do  conjointly  what  they  can  do  singly,  each  having  like 
interests  to  promote. 

Georffid 

Labor  boycotts,  accompanied  by  intimidation,  are  illegal  by 
statute  (word  ''boycott"  not  used).  Court  has  held  that  a 
labor  boycott,  accompanied  by  force,  is  illegal,  as  well  as  a 
trade  boycott  which  involves  such  coercion  as  comes  from 
threat  of  loss  of  business  to  third  parties  and  malicious  inter- 
ference with  contract  relations.  Employers'  boycott,  where 
false  notice  is  given,  is  not  approved.  While  no  case  decided 
by  highest  court,  where  attempt  was  made  by  workers  to 
withdraw  patronage,  is  observed,  it  seems  likely  that  such 
would  be  condemned  if  it  involved  coercion  of  third  parties 
through  threats  of  loss  of  business. 

Statutes:  Penal  Code,  1895,  Sees.  119-126.  A  misde- 
meanor to  hinder  engagement  of  a  person  in  a  lawful  business 
by  threats,  intimidation,  violence,  or  other  unlawful  means. 
Sees.  I  to  4  of  the  Acts  of  1901,  p.  63,  make  it  illegal  for 
one  to  interfere  with  employee  under  contract  relations  with 
another* 


APPENDIX  409 

Brown  v.  Jacobs  Pharmacy  Co.  (1902).  For  Injunction. 
Trade  Boycott.  Illegal.  Atlantic  Retail  Drug  Ass'n,  of 
which  pi.  was  formerly  a  member,  issued  circulars  stating  that 
pi.  was  an  aggressive  cutter;  required  salesmen  of  whole- 
salers to  agree  not  to  sell  goods  to  non-members,  and  stated 
to  wholesalers  that  members  would  withdraw  patronage  unless 
such  wholesalers  refused  to  sell  to  pi.  Held  by  court  that 
combination  was  void  and   injunction  would   issue. 

Willis  V.  Muscogee  Mfg.  Co.  (1904).  Blacklist.  Illegal 
(if  notice  false).  Def.  and  other  companies  agreed  to  notify 
each  other  whenever  an  employee  left  without  cause  and  with- 
out giving  6  days'  notice.  Held  that  such  an  agreement  was 
legal.  PL  alleged  that  he  was  discharged  for  refusing  to 
change  contract,  and  was  afterwards  refused  employment  be- 
cause of  false  notification.  Held  it  was  error  to  grant  non- 
suit. 

Employing  Printers'  Club  v.  Doctor  Blosser  Co.  (1905). 
Civil  Action.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Il- 
legal. Employing  printers,  formed  for  illegal  purpose  of  reg- 
ulating prices,  induced  employees  of  pi.,  who  refused  to  enter 
combination,  to  strike,  by  threatening  to  discontinue  their 
agreement  to  abide  longer  by  union  regulations  unless  workers 
obeyed.  Damage,  $10,000.  Held  the  combination  consti- 
tuted an  unlawful  conspiracy  and  malicious  interference  with 
contract  relations. 

Jones  V.  E.  Van  Winkle  Gin  and  Machine  Works  (1908). 
Civil  Action.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Il- 
legal. Members  of  labor  organization  endeavored  to  prevent 
others  by  intimidation  to  work  for  pi.  Held  interference  with 
business  of  another  by  force,  etc.,  so  as  to  prevent  them  from 
entering  or  remaining  in  employment,  was  illegal,  although  legal 
to  persuade  others  not  to  take  employment. 


Kentucky 

Boycott  accompanied  by  coercion  is  declared  illegal  by  stat- 
ute  (word  "boycott"  not  used).     No  boycott  case  in  which 


4IO  BOYCOTTS 

workmen  were  the  boycotters  has  been  decided  by  the  highest 
court.  A  primary  boycott,  not  involved  in  labor  dispute,  has, 
however,  been  pronounced  legal,  while  a  trade  boycott,  in 
which  threats  of  loss  of  business  were  evidenced,  was  found 
illegal.  Employers'  boycotts,  involving  false  statements  or 
coercion,  were  also  declared  illegal;  interference,  in  which 
these  elements  were  absent,  legal.  It  is  probable  that  threats 
of  loss  of  business  against  third  parties  by  employees  would 
be  considered  illegal. 

Statutes:  St.  1903,  Sec.  802,  entitled  "Hindering,  etc.. 
Transportation  by  Violence."  Act  makes  unlawful  interfer- 
ence with  transportation  or  commerce  by  violence.  Sec.  803, 
entitled  "Coercion."  Act  makes  unlawful  hindering  the  free 
and  lawful  use  of  property  of  another  by  means  of  coercion. 
Punishment,  $25  to  $2CX),  or  10  days  to  6  mos.,  or  both. 

Brewster  v.  Miller's  Sons  (1897).  Primary  Boycott.  (Not 
labor  dispute.)  Legal.  Def.  refused  to  take  charge  of  pl.'s 
wife's  funeral.  Held  with  Cooley  that  one  may  refuse  busi- 
ness relations  with  another  for  any  reason  whatsoever. 

Hundley  v.  Louisville  Railroad  Co.  (1898).  Civil  Action. 
Blacklist.  Illegal.  PI.  was  discharged  from  def.  railroad  and 
was  unable  to  secure  employment  on  other  railroads,  inasmuch 
as  def.  had  entered  on  the  books  a  false  reason  for  discharge, 
and  had  agreed  with  other  railroads  not  to  employ  discharged 
employees.  Held  that  this  is  an  actionable  wrong,  but  that 
pi.  must  show  that  he  applied  for  employment  and  was  dis- 
charged because  of  def's.  act.  A  malicious  interference  with 
the  right  of  a  person  to  pursue  his  trade  is  actionable. 

Baker  v.  Met.  L.  I.  Co.  (1901).  Civil  Action.  Blacklist. 
Legal.  Insurance  agent  was  discharged  from  Metropolitan 
Co.  at  the  request  of  the  Sun  Ins.  Co.,  because  of  an  agree- 
ment entered  into  between  the  Sun,  Prudential  and  Metropoli- 
tan, whereby  neither  company  would  employ  any  former  em- 
ployee of  any  company  within  two  years  of  discontinuance  of 
employment.  Held  that  pi.  had  no  right  of  action  where  def. 
had  right  to  terminate  relation  at  any  time;  that  there  was  no 


APPENDIX  411 

falsehood  or  coercion  used,  and  that  pi.  had  the  right  to  refuse 
business  relation  with  any  person  for  any  reason. 

Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Doyle  (1904).  (Ct.  of  Apps.)  Civil 
Action.  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal.  Def.  threatened  to  ruin 
customers  of  oil  merchant  if  they  continued  to  deal  in  his 
oils.     Illegal. 

Louisiana 

There  is  no  act  of  a  general  nature,  but  one  confined  to 
seamen.  Courts  have  held  that  labor  and  trade  boycotts,  w^hen 
accompanied  either  by  threats,  etc.,  or  malice,  are  illegal,  but 
that  trade  boycotts,  w^here  third  parties  are  coerced  through 
fear  of  loss,  are  legal  if  the  boycotters  have  a  legitimate  inter- 
est to  uphold.  When  the  boycott  is  conducted  by  one  only, 
it  is  considered  especially  subject  to  favorable  decision.  It  is 
doubtful  that  the  courts  would  work  out  any  justification  for 
a  boycott  in  a  labor  dispute  in  which  third  parties  were  threat- 
ened by  workers  with  loss. 

Rev.  Laws,  1904,  Sec.  944.  Act,  entitled  "Intimidation  of 
Seamen."  Act  makes  illegal  intimidating  and  preventing  sea- 
men from  shipping  on  vessel,  or  unlawfully  interfering  with 
them. 

Dickson  v.  Dickson  (1881).  Civil  Action.  Secondary  or 
Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Illegal.  Held  il- 
legal to  induce  laborers  to  abandon  work,  by  threats,  persua- 
sion or  otherwise,  when  wantonly  and  maliciously  done,  on  the 
ground  that  the  laborers  have  a  right  to  pursue  their  lawful 
calling  without  interference. 

Graham  v.  St.  Charles  Street  Railroad  et  al.  (1895).  Civil 
Action.  Compound  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal.  Railroad  fore- 
man, in  hiring  and  discharging  employees,  discriminated 
against  those  dealing  in  pl.'s  grocery  store.  Held  illegal  for 
one  to  influence  another  to  cause  a  loss  to  a  third  party  if  no 
legitimate  right  or  interest  of  one's  own  is  served  thereby, 
although  a  person  may  himself  refuse  to  deal  with  another 
for  any  purpose. 

Webb  v.  Drake   (1899).     Civil  Action.     Compound  Boy- 


412  BOYCOTTS 

cott  to  Punish  Tax  Collector.  Illegal.  Merchants  agreed  to 
boycott  any  commercial  traveler  who  stopped  at  pL's  hotel 
for  the  purpose  of  punishing  pi.  for  his  conduct  as  tax  as- 
sessor.   Held,  boycott  was  without  justification  and  illegal. 

Schneider  v.  Local  Union  No.  60  (1906).  For  Injunction 
and  Damage.  Boycott  Own  Member.  Illegal.  Member  of 
a  labor  union,  acting  in  a  public  capacity  as  member  of  the 
Board  of  Examiners  of  Plumbers,  refused  to  appoint  a  fellow 
member  recommended  by  the  union  as  an  inspector.  He  was 
fined  and  boycotted.  Held  that  he  was  entilied  to  relief  by 
injunction  and  to  reinstatement  in  his  union  without  paying 
his  fine;  that  he  also  should  have  damages,  inasmuch  as  the 
conduct  of  the  pi.  did  not  justify  the  injury  committed. 

Lewis  V.  Huie-Hodge  Lumber  Co.  (1908).  Civil  Action. 
Compound  Trade  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Legal. 
Lumber  owner  threatened  to  discharge  employees  who  pur- 
chased supplies  from  def.'s  store.  Court,  in  holding  this  action 
legal,  distinguished  this  from  Webb  v.  Drake,  on  the  ground 
that  here  employer  acted  singly;  distinguished  from  Graham 
v.  St.  Charles  Street  Railway  on  ground  that  employer  was 
not  acting  maliciously,  but  had  a  legitimate  interest  to  uphold, 
and  that  men  threatened  were  his  own  employees — factors  not 
present  in  former  case. 

Mississippi 

Boycotts,  accompanied  by  intimidation,  are  illegal  by  statute 
(word  "boycott"  not  mentioned).  While  there  has  been  no 
decision  by  the  highest  court  on  boycotts  in  labor  disputes, 
the  principle  has  been  laid  down  that  a  boycott  is  illegal  when 
third  parties  are  coerced  to  withdraw  patronage  on  pain  of 
injury,  when  the  coercion  is  accompanied  by  malicious  mo- 
tives. It  seems  likely  that  a  boycott  in  a  labor  dispute  would 
be  considered  actionable. 

Statutes:  Code,  1906,  Sec.  1084.  Act  entitled  "Con- 
spiracy against  Workingmen."  Illegal  for  combination  to 
prevent  another  from  exercising  lawful  trade,  or   doing  any 


APPENDIX  413 

other  lawful  act,  by  force,  threats  or  intimidation.  Punish- 
ment, $25  or  more,  or  i  to  6  mos.,  or  both.  Sec.  1146,  en- 
titled ''Enticing  Laborers,"  declares  illegal  wilful  interference 
with  contract  relations  between  laborer  and  employer.  Pun- 
ishment, $25  to  $ICX). 

Wesley  v.  Native  Lumber  Co.  (1910).  Civil  Action. 
Compound  Trade  Boycott.  (Coercing  Employees.)  Illegal. 
Employer  ordered  employees  not  to  patronize  pl.'s  store  on 
pain  of  being  discharged.  Held  that  it  is  illegal  to  influence 
others  to  refuse  to  patronize  a  third  party  for  the  purpose  of 
injuring  his  business;  that  act,  and  the  accompanying  mali- 
cious motive,  make  the  act  illegal. 

North    Carolina 

There  is  no  statute  on  the  subject.  The  court  has  held 
that  concerted  coercion  of  third  parties  through  fear  of  loss 
of  employees  does  not  constitute  a  criminal  conspiracy  when 
the  means  used  is  the  publication  of  an  unfair  list. 

Statutes:  Laws,  1905,  Sec.  3365,  entitled  "Interference 
with  Employment."  Illegal  to  entice  away  servants  under 
contract.     Max.  punishment  $100,  or  6  mos. 

State  v.  Van  Pelt  (1904).  Criminal  Conspiracy.  Unfair 
List.  (Connected  with  Secondary  Boycott  Involving  Work- 
men.) Legal.  Carpenters  and  joiners  notified  employer  that 
he  would  not  be  considered  in  sympathy  with  organized 
labor  unless  he  employed  only  union  men,  and  discharged  his 
non-union  men,  some  of  whom  were  under  contract  relations 
with  him,  and,  on  his  refusal  to  accede  to  their  demands, 
published  a  resolution  in  a  newspaper  that  the  employer  was 
unfair,  and  that  henceforth  union  men  would  refuse  to  work 
on  material  from  his  shop.  Held  that  defs.  had  a  right  to 
publish  a  statement  setting  forth  that  they  had  done  or  in- 
tended to  do  acts  which  they  had  a  legal  right  to  do.  Judges 
implied  that  an  unfair  list  is  not  a  boycott.  They  compared 
these  actions  of  unionists  with  those  of  farmers,  tradesmen, 
reformers,  etc. 


414  BOYCOTTS 

Holder  v.  Cannon  Mfg.  Co.  (1904)-  Civil  Action.  Ele- 
ment of  Blacklist.  Illegal.  Def.  company  caused  discharge 
of  pi.,  who  was  employed  in  the  Gibson  Man.  Co.  Held  that 
one  causing  the  discharge  of  another  wilfully  and  maliciously 
was  liable  in  damages  to  the  injured  party. 


Oklahoma 

Interfering  with  workmen  by  intimidation  is  declared  by 
statute  illegal.  No  cases  have  been  decided  fty  highest  court. 
In  one  of  the  lower  courts  a  case  where  boycott  has  been 
declared  legal  has  been  cited. 

Statutes:  St.  of  1903,  par.  2544,  entitled  "Intimidating 
Workingmen."  Misdemeanor,  interfering  with  employment 
of  workman  by  force,  threats,  etc.  Par.  2545,  "Intimidating 
Employees."  Act  makes  misdemeanor  the  preventing  employer 
from  hiring,  or  compelling  employer  to  hire,  another  by  force, 
etc.,  or  the  forcing  or  inducing  of  another  to  alter  his  mode  of 
carrying  on  business. 

Oklahoma  Electric  Planing  Mill  v.  Chickasha  Trades 
Council  (1909).  Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott  Involving 
Patronage.  Legal.  Union  fined  teamsters  who  patronized 
pi.  Court  held  legal.  Case  reported  in  Am.  Fed.  Citation 
not  given. 

South    Carolina 

No  statute  applying  directly  to  boycotts  in  labor  disputes. 
There  is  no  court  decision  on  boycotts  by  the  highest  court. 
Employers*  boycott — the  blacklist — when  accompanied  by  mal- 
ice, is  held  actionable. 

Statutes:  Code,  1902,  entitled  "Enticing  Employees." 
Makes  illegal  persuading  employees  under  contract  to  leave 
service.  Laws,  1902,  No.  574,  Sec.  5.  A  combination  to 
boycott  any  person  for  dealing  with  one  not  a  member  of  the 
combination  is  illegal.     Applies  to  trade  boycott  only. 

Rhodes  v.   Granby   Cotton   Mills    (1910).      Civil   Action. 


APPENDIX  415 

Blacklist.  Illegal.  Following  a  strike  in  Granby  Cotton 
Mills,  the  owner  sent  a  list  of  names  of  strikers  to  other  own- 
ers, including  thereon  the  name  of  the  pi.,  who  chanced  not 
to  be  a  striker.  As  a  result,  pi.  was  unable  to  obtain  employ- 
ment. Held  blacklisting  actionable  in  damages,  and  the  keep- 
ing of  name  of  pi.  on  list  after  knowledge  of  injury  and  of 
his  not  being  a  striker  indicated  malice. 

Tennessee 

No  statutes  directly  bearing  on  boycotts.  An  employer's 
boycott  accompanied  by  threat  of  injury  to  third  party  is 
legal,  according  to  the  court.  Malice  is  not  material.  No 
case  of  boycott  in  labor  dispute  has  been  decided  by  highest 
court.  It  is  possible  that,  following  the  principles  laid  down 
in  other  cases,  such  a  boycott  would  be  regarded  as  legal, 
unless  the  court  took  the  view  that  boycotters  had  no  legiti- 
mate interest  to  uphold. 

Statutes:  Code  and  Supplement,  1896  and  1904,  Sec.  4337, 
entitled  ''Enticing  of  Employees."  Act  makes  illegal  enticing 
of  employees  under  contract.  Liable  for  damages  sustained 
by  employer. 

Payne  v.  Western  and  Atlantic  Ry.  Co.  (1884).  Com- 
pound Trade  Boycott.  (Coercing  Employee.)  Legal.  Rail- 
road official  announced  that  any  one  on  Chattanooga  payroll 
dealing  with  pi.  would  be  discharged.  Held,  legal;  that  em- 
ployer had  right  to  discharge  employee  for  any  reason;  that 
threats  to  do  a  legal  act  were  not  illegal,  and  that  the  exis- 
tence of  malice  did  not  render  the  act  illegal. 

Texas 

Statute  prohibits  boycotting  when  done  by  two  or  more, 
and   also  interference  with   employment. 

Practically  all  of  the  boycotts  decided  have  been  trade  boy- 
cotts. In  these  cases  it  was  declared  that  the  boycotter  could 
persuade  or  threaten  a  third  party  with  loss  of  employment, 
etc.,   provided  he  had  a  legitimate  interest  to  protect.     The 


4i6  BOYCOTTS 

inducing  or  threatening  of  a  third  party,  if  done  maliciously, 
and  not  for  the  protection  of  some  legitimate  interest,  was 
pronounced  illegal.  Primary  boycotts,  by  dicta,  were  declared 
legal.  False  statements,  issued  in  pursuance  of  the  boycott, 
constituted  illegal  means.  A  blacklist,  where  no  wilful  bad 
faith  was  evidenced  nor  intentionally  false  statements  made,  was 
declared  legal.  In  deciding  whether  or  not  a  boycott  in  labor 
disputes  would  be  legal,  the  main  consideration  would  un- 
doubtedly be  the  question  of  legitimate  interest  and  lack  of 
malice.  If  the  court  followed  the  trend  of  Opinion  in  other 
states,  malice  would  probably  be  read  into  the  act. 

Statutes:  Acts  of  1903,  Chap.  94,  Sec.  3,  entitled  "Boy- 
cotting." Act  prohibits  agreement  of  two  or  more  persons 
to  boycott  or  threaten  to  refuse  to  buy  from  or  sell  to  any 
other  person,  etc.  Such  agreement  shall  be  void;  its  violation 
shall  render  the  association  liable  for  a  fine  of  $50  a  day,  and 
may  be  punishable  by  imprisonment  of  from  one  to  ten  years. 
Rev.  St.  1895,  Art.  309,  entitled  "Interference  with  Employ- 
ment." Act  makes  illegal  an  assembly  whose  purpose  it  is 
to  interfere  in  any  manner  with  employment  of  another.  Max, 
punishment,  $500.  Art.  324,  Act  makes  illegal  engaging  in 
a  riot  for  the  purpose  of  interfering  in  any  manner  with  em- 
ployment of  another.  Punishment,  6  mos.  to  i  yr.  Art.  600, 
Act  makes  illegal,  interference  by  any  person  with  employment 
of  another  by  means  of  threatening  words,  acts  of  violence 
and  intimidation.     Punishment  $25   to  $500,  or  i  to  6  mos. 

Delz  V.  Winfree  (1891).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott. 
Illegal.  Def.  refused  to  sell  pi.  beeves,  and  induced  at  least 
three  other  persons  to  so  refuse.  Held  that  inducing  of 
others  to  refuse  to  sell,  without  serving  any  purpose  of  one's 
own,  but  maliciously,  is  illegal;  that  a  primary  boycott,  a 
refusal  to  have  relations  with  another  for  any  reason,  is  legal; 
that  the  inducement  of  others  to  refuse  dealings,  if  such  re- 
fusal serves  some  legitimate  right,  and  violates  no  right  of 
another,  is  legal,  and  that  the  mere  fact  of  combination  does  not 
make  legal  act  illegal. 

Intern.,  etc.,  Railroad  v.  Greenwood   (1893).     (Tex.  Civ. 


APPENDIX  417 

App.)  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal.  Def.  railroad  company  en- 
deavored to  induce  employees  to  withdraw  their  patronage 
from  pi.  through  threats  of  discharge.  PI.  owned  hotel  fre- 
quented by  railroad  men,  and  def.  declared  that  he  feared 
litigation  if  patronage  continued.  Action  held  illegal;  that, 
while  defs.  could  make  any  condition  of  employment  they 
desired  with  those  entering  employment,  they  could  discharge 
employees  only  for  reasonable  causes,  and  must  give  evidence 
showing  necessity  for  instructions  before  acts  could  be  con- 
sidered legal. 

Olive  V.  Van  Patten  (1894).  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  Trade 
Boycott.  Illegal.  Defs.,  the  Lumber  Dealers'  Ass'n  of 
Texas,  issued  circulars,  asking  others  not  to  deal  with  pi. 
until  he  agreed  to  join  the  association.  PL's  profit  of  $100,000 
a  year  was  greatly  reduced.  Held  that  such  an  attempt  to 
ruin  pi.  as  competitor  could  not  be  deemed  a  legitimate  pur- 
pose, although  defs.  might  be  benefited  thereby;  that  motive 
here  was  malicious. 

Robison  v.  Texas  Pine  Land  Co.  (1897).  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.)  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott.  Coercing  Employees. 
Legal.  Def.,  with  log  mills  at  Beaumont,  threatened  to  dis- 
charge those  employees  dealing  with  pL,  and  stated  that  he 
would  not  pay  the  checks  passing  through  pl.'s  hands.  Def. 
was  selling  same  kind  of  goods  as  was  pi.  Held,  that  no 
action  would  lie;  that  if  def.  had  no  property  interest  of  his 
own  in  so  doing,  but  had  acted  wantonly  in  causing  loss,  the 
rule  would  be  different;  that  injury  to  business  here  is  the 
natural  result  of  successful  competition. 

Brown  v.  Am.  Freehold  Land  Mtg.  Co.  (1904).  Civil 
Action.  Trade  Boycott.  (False  Statements.)  Illegal.  Def. 
was  accused  by  pi.  of  ruining  his  business  as  a  loan  agent 
through  issuing  false  statements  to  a  bank,  and  thus  making 
him  unable  to  obtain  loans.  Court  held  pi.  stated  a  good 
cause  of  action  not  because  of  bad  motive,  but  of  false  state- 
ments, etc.,  but  that  a  combination  to  destroy  the  business 
of  another  would  not  be  illegal  where  the  end  was  sought 
by   no   unlawful   means,    nor   was   it   rendered   actionable   by 


41 8  BOYCOTTS 

malice  or  wrongful  motives,  where  the  means  used  were 
lawful. 

Wills  V.  Central  Ice  Co.  (1905).  (Tex.  Civ.  App.) 
Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  Def.  companies  refused  to  sell  ice 
to  the  pi.  on  the  ground  that  they  had  a  five  years'  contract 
with  Wakefield,  who  bought  all  ice.  Court  held  that  a  con- 
spiracy cannot  be  made  subject  to  a  civil  action  unless  some- 
thing is  done  which,  without  the  conspiracy,  would  give  a 
right  of  action. 

St.  Louis  Southwestern  Ry.  Co.  of  Texas  v.^Hixon  (1911). 
Blacklist.  Legal.  Employee  of  railroad,  a  brakeman,  was 
discharged  for  refusing  to  act  as  brakeman  on  train  on  which 
air  brakes  were  out  of  order.  The  company,  in  furnishing 
information  to  other  railroad  companies  as  to  the  reason  for 
his  discharge,  stated  that  he  was  discharged  for  insubordina- 
tion. Chap.  67  of  the  laws  of  1907  declares  that  an  employer 
must  furnish  a  true  statement  of  his  discharge  to  any  one  so 
requiring.  Court  reversed  judgment  of  the  Ct.  of  App.,  de- 
claring that  as  the  reason  given  here  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  company  was  wholly  true,  and  as  there  was  no  claim  of 
wilful  bad  faith,  no  action  would  lie. 

Virffinia 

Summary.  No  statute  on  subject.  Court  has  declared  boy- 
cott, involving  coercion  of  workers  and  customers  through 
fear  of  injury,  a  criminal  conspiracy. 

Crump  V.  Commonwealth  (1888).  Criminal  Conspiracy. 
Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage  and  Workmen.  Il- 
legal. Def.  was  an  officer  of  the  Typographical  Union  of 
Richmond,  on  strike  for  a  closed  shop  against  Baughman 
Brothers,  printers.  He,  with  other  members  of  the  union, 
threatened  to  break  up  business  of  patrons  of  Baughman; 
published  their  names  on  a  "Blacklist"  in  Labor  World;  boy- 
cotted those  boarding  employees  of  Baughman,  issued  circulars 
denouncing  customers,  and  caused  a  loss  to  complainant  of 
$io,ooo  net  profit.     Held  that  the  conspiracy  was  illegal,  as 


APPENDIX  419 

a  wanton   interference  with   the  business  of  another   in   his 
relations  with  his  employees. 

West    Virginia 

Statute  here  prevents  unlawful  interference  with  employ- 
ment of  miners.  There  have  been  no  decisions  on  boycotts 
in  labor  disputes  by  highest  court.  Trade  boycotts,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  right  of  competition,  are,  however,  held  legal, 
where  illegal  means  are  not  used. 

Statutes:  Labor  Laws,  1907,  Chap.  78,  Sec.  19,  entitled 
"Interfering  with  Employment."  Act  makes  illegal  the  inter- 
fering with  employment  of  miners  by  force,  threats,  menaces 
or  intimidation. 

West  Virginia  Transportation  Co.  v.  Standard  Oil  Co. 
(1901).  Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  PI.  was  in 
business  of  transporting  petroleum  oils  by  pipe  lines  and  tank 
cars,  and  storing  oil.  Def,  company  endeavored  to  divert 
customers  from  pi.  in  order  to  secure  trade  for  itself.  Held 
that  such  inducement  was  legal  in  the  race  for  competition, 
there  being  no  breaking  of  a  contract,  and  that  the  existence 
of  malice  was  immaterial;  that,  however,  where  the  injury 
was  not  done  under  the  right  of  competition,  but  maliciously, 
with  intent  to  injure,  loss  ensuing,  the  injury  would  be  action- 
able. No  mention  was  made,  in  the  charge,  of  names  of  cus- 
tomers who  had  been  coerced. 


WESTERN    STATES 

No  decisions  on  boycotts  in  labor  disputes  have  been  made 
in  the  highest  courts  in  Arizona,  Colorado,  Idaho,  New  Mex- 
ico, North  Dakota,  South  Dakota,  Utah  or  Wyoming. 

In  California  and  Montana  secondary  and  some  forms  of 
the  compound  boycotts  have  been  pronounced  legal,  and  the 
publication  of  the  unfair  list  and  other  circulars  will  not  be 
enjoined.  This  is  true  even  though  third  parties  understand 
as  a  result  of  the  circular  that  their  continued  patronage  with 


420  BOYCOTTS 

the  boycotted  firm  will  cause  them  loss  of  business.  In 
California  actual  annoyance  in  the  vicinity  of  the  business  of 
the  boycotted  firm,  however,  is  not  permitted.  In  Oregon  an 
injunction  will  not  issue,  even  though  threats  of  loss  of  cus- 
tom are  made,  unless  absolute  proof  of  irreparable  injury  can 
be  submitted.  In  Washington  the  boycotters  can  be  enjoined 
from  maliciously  inducing  customers  to  cease  dealing  with 
a  firm,  and  from  persuading  or  coercing  the  public  from 
purchasing,  if,  in  so  doing,  the  boycotters  gather  around  the 
place  of  business. 

Arizona 

No  statute  and  decisions  noted. 

California 

Boycotts,  unattended  by  force,  are  declared  legal  by  statutes. 
The  courts  have  held  that  it  is  legal  to  declare  and  give 
publicity  to  a  boycott  against  an  employer;  to  inform  cus- 
tomers of  its  existence;  to  request  that  they  cease  patronizing 
the  boycotted  concern;  to  threaten  a  like  boycott  against  those 
who  refuse;  to  threaten  a  loss  of  the  working  force  to  those 
continuing  to  purchase,  and  to  use  other  moral  suasion. 

It  is  illegal,  on  the  other  hand,  as  a  result  of  the  court's 
decisions,  for  the  boycotters,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  boycotted 
establishments,  to  annoy  and  intimidate  the  boycotted  firm  in 
its  business,  or  its  customers  or  workmen.  Injunctions  will 
issue  in  these  cases.  Where  boycotters  are  accused  of  violence, 
acts  must  definitely  be  specified.  Libel  will  not  be  enjoined. 
This  is  one  of  the  most  liberal  of  states. 

Statutes:  Penal  Code  Appendix,  1906,  Sec.  i,  entitled 
"Labor  Agreements,  Not  Conspiracy."  Act  provides  that  no 
agreement  between  two  or  more  persons  in  furtherance  of 
any  trade  dispute  between  employer  and  employee  shall  be 
deemed  criminal,  if  such  act,  committed  by  one  person,  would 
not  be  punishable  as  a  crime,  nor  shall  such  agreement  be 
considered  in  restraint  of  trade,  nor  shall  any  injunction  order 


APPENDIX  421 

be  issued.     Force,  violence  or  threats,  however,  are  prohibited. 

Daily  v.  Superior  Court  (1896).  For  Injunction.  Publi- 
cation of  Libel.  (Not  connected  with  labor  dispute.)  Not 
Enjoinable.  Def.  was  planning  to  present  facts  of  a  criminal 
suit  on  the  stage,  and  pi.  endeavored  to  prevent  this  by  in- 
junction. Held  that  right  of  a  citizen  to  speak  and  write 
freely  is  unlimited,  and  that  to  restrain  him  from  exercising 
this  right  would  be  to  violate  the  provisions  of  the  constitution. 

Davitt  V.  American  Bakers'  Union  (1899).  Foi"  Injunc- 
tion. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Also  Libel- 
ous Circulars.  Legal — under  particular  facts  in  case.  Com- 
plaint charged  in  a  general  way  that  defs.  attempted,  by  force, 
menace  and  threats,  to  intimidate  workmen,  and  that  they 
maliciously  published  false  circulars,  etc.  Held  that  injunc- 
tion would  not  be  granted,  and  that  the  charge  was  too  broad. 

Jordahl  v.  Hayda  (1905).  (Cal.  App.)  For  Injunction. 
Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage  and  Workmen.  Il- 
legal. Members  of  Cooks'  and  Waiters'  Alliance,  Local  220, 
of  Eureka,  struck  because  employer  failed  to  obtain  union 
card.  They  congregated  about  the  restaurant,  distributed  cir- 
culars, displayed  "boycott"  signs,  and  sought  to  keep  cus- 
tomers and  employees  away  from  the  place.  The  court  issued 
an  injunction  forbidding  any  acts  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
the  pl.'s  restaurant  tending  to  hinder,  impede  or  obstruct  pi. 
in  the  transaction  of  his  business,  and  from  hindering,  intimi- 
dating or  annoying  customers  going  to  or  coming  from  the 
restaurant,  and  from  annoying  or  intimidating  workmen.  In 
upholding  this  injunction,  the  Ct.  of  App.  declared  that  the 
right  of  free  speech  and  press  is  no  more  important  than  the 
right  of  "acquiring,  possessing  and  protecting  property,  and 
possessing  and  obtaining  safety  and  happiness,"  guaranteed  by 
the  Constitution  (Sec.  i.  Art.  i),  and  that  an  unwarrantable 
interference  with  pl.'s  business,  and  intimidation  of  the  pL, 
will  be  prohibited. 

Goldberg,  Bowen  and  Co.  v.  Stablemen's  Union,  Local  No. 
8760  (1906).  For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involv- 
ing Patronage  and  Workmen.     Illegal.     Defs.  in  San  Fran- 


42  2  BOYCOTTS 

CISCO  struck,  on  account  of  a  reduction  in  wages,  against  pis., 
who  conducted  three  grocery  and  general  household  goods 
stores.  They  stationed  pickets  in  front  of  stores  bearing 
placards  on  which  were  written,  "Unfair  Firm;  Reduced 
Wages  50  Cents  a  Day.  Please  Do  Not  Patronize."  They 
were  charged  with  intimidating  customers  and  employees.  The 
Sup.  Ct.  approved  a  modified  injunction  forbidding  the  har- 
assing, interference  with  or  obstruction  of  pis.  in  the  conduct 
of  their  business,  the  threatening  or  intimidation  of  customers, 
and  the  carrying  of  placards  with  words  jimilar  to  those 
indicated,  if  these  acts  were  committed  in  front  of  or  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  pis.'  stores.  It  held,  however,  the  injunction 
of  the  lower  court  too  sweeping,  which  enjoined  defs.  from 
the  mere  expression  of  opinion,  at  any  time  or  place,  regarding 
pis.*  business,  but  added  that,  if  the  section  in  the  penal  code 
forbade  the  court  from  enjoining  such  wrongful  acts  as  were 
committed  by  defs.,  such  section,  to  that  extent,  would  be 
unconstitutional,  because  it  violated  pis.'  constitutional  right 
to  acquire,  possess  and  enjoy  protection  and  property. 

J.  F.  Parkinson  &  Co.  v.  Building  Trades'  Council  of 
Santa  Clara  Co.  et  al.  (1908).  For  Injunction.  Compound 
Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  (Circulars.)  Legal.  Defs. 
struck  against  proprietor  of  a  lumber  yard,  plumbing  and 
tinning  shop,  because  of  his  employment  of  a  non-union  man, 
and  sent  circulars  to  pl.'s  customers,  stating  that  his  shop 
was  unfair,  and  that  union  men  would  not  work  for  any  con- 
tractors purchasing  supplies  from  him.  A  number  of  cus- 
tomers ceased  dealings,  some  canceling  unfilled  orders.  Chief 
Justice  Beatty  held  that  an  injunction  should  not  be  granted; 
that  the  purpose  of  the  strike,  to  secure  the  employment  only 
of  union  men,  was  lawful;  as  was  also  the  ruling  of  the 
council  that  no  union  man  should  handle  non-union  goods; 
that  fair  dealing  required  that  contractors  be  informed  of  the 
status  of  the  pi.,  and  that,  therefore,  the  sending  of  notice 
was  justifiable.  Even  if  this  act  was  without  justification 
and  malicious,  there  was  no  evidence  that  future  notices  were 
to  be  sent,  he  averred,  and  that  in  thir  case  both  purpose  and 


APPENDIX  423 

means  were  lawful.  Judge  Sloss  declared  that  defs.  had  the 
right  to  cease  to  deal  with  one  pursuing  a  course  detrimental 
to  them,  and  with  one  aiding  by  their  patronage  the  offender's 
detrimental  policies;  that  defs.  had  a  legal  right  to  refuse  to 
enter  into  business  relations  with  others,  and  that  threats  to 
exercise  their  legal  right  would  not  be  considered  unlawful; 
furthermore,  that  motive  does  not  make  a  legal  act  illegal. 

Pierce  v.  Stablemen's  Union,  Local  8760  et  al.  (1909). 
For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage. 
Legal.  Strike  in  attempt  to  unionize  shop,  against  pL,  who 
kept  livery  stable  in  San  Francisco.  Defs.  instituted  a  boy- 
cott, threatening  customers  with  loss  of  business  if  they  con- 
tinued to  patronize  pis.  They  also  established  a  picket,  and 
used  menacing  language.  An  injunction  was  issued.  The 
court,  in  modifying  it,  stated  that  the  strikers  had  the  right 
by  all  legitimate  means — by  fair  publication,  and  fair  oral  or 
written  persuasion — to  induce  others  interested  in,  or  sym- 
pathetic with,  their  cause  to  withdraw  their  social  inter- 
course and  business  patronage  from  the  employer  ...  to 
request  another  that  he  withdraw  his  patronage,  and  to  use 
moral  intimidation  and  coercion  by  threatening  a  like  boycott 
against  him  if  he  refused  so  to  do.  He  also  contended  that 
unionists  on  strike  occupy  no  contractual  relation  to  their 
former  employer,  and  can  employ  no  means  not  equally  open 
to  any  other  individual. 

Colorado 

Statute  makes  boycott  illegal.  No  decision  in  the  highest 
court.  An  early  case  before  1896  in  a  lower  court  has  been 
cited  as  legal.  A  trade  boycott  has  been  pronounced  legal, 
in  which  no  coercion  was  used. 

Statutes:  Acts  of  1905,  Chap.  79,  Sec.  2,  entitled  "Boy- 
cotting." Act  declares  unlawful  the  printing  or  circulating  of 
any  notice  of  boycott.  Sec.  i,  entitled  'Ticketing  Unlawful," 
Act  makes  illegal  loitering  around  the  streets  for  the  purpose  of 


424  BOYCOTTS 

influencing  others  not  to  trade  with  or  work  for  any  indi- 
vidual.    Punishment,  $io  to  $250,  or  60  days,  or  both. 

DePear  v.  The  Cooks'  Union.  For  Injunction.  Secondary 
or  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Union  carried 
placards  in  a  parade  around  the  city  calling  attention  to  the 
fact  that  pi.  was  an  enemy  of  organized  labor.  Injunction 
was  refused. 

Master  Builders'  Assoc,  v.  Domascio  (i9oO-  (Col.  App.) 
Civil  Action  and  for  Injunction.  Trade  Boycott.  Legal. 
Builders'  Ass'n  of  Denver  notified  architect  'that,  if  he  re- 
ceived bid  from  pi.,  Association  would  refuse  to  bid.  Court 
held  legal,  since  no  coercion  or  intimidation  was  suggested, 
and  the  architects  were  at  liberty  to  receive  bids  of  others  who 
had  not  signed  the  notification. 

Idaho 

Statute:  No  court  decisions.  Penal  Code,  1901,  Sec.  4687, 
entitled  "Conspiracy — Intimidation  of  Miners."  Makes  mis- 
demeanor the  association  of  persons  to  interfere,  by  force,  etc., 
with  miner  at  work  in  mine.  (Application  to  boycotts  ex- 
tremely doubtful.) 

Montana 

No  statute.  Legal  to  issue  a  circular  calling  on  others  to 
cease  to  patronize  third  party,  even  though  it  is  understood  by 
such  publication  that  the  boycotters  will  cease  to  patronize 
those  not  withdrawing  their  custom  from  the  boycotted  firm. 
Doctrine  of  malice  or  of  combination  not  accepted. 

Lindsay  and  Co.  v.  Montana  Federation  of  Labor  et  al. 
(1908).  For  Injunction.  Secondary  or  Compound  Boycott 
Involving  Patronage.  Legal.  In  October,  1907,  Lindsay  & 
Trades'  Assembly  of  Helena,  which  action  had  been  indorsed 
by  the  Montana  Fed.  of  Labor.  Circulars  announcing  that 
fact  had  been  sent  to  the  various  labor  organizations  in  the 
state,  and,  on  Oct.  25,  the  Yellowstone  Trades'  and  Labor 
Assembly   declared    Lindsay   unfair,    following   action    of    the 


APPENDIX  425 

Helena  body^  and  referred  the  matter  to  a  grievance  com- 
mittee. The  following  circular  was  thereafter  issued  by  the 
union,  and  circulated  among  the  public  and  business  houses 
of  Billings: 

"All  laboring  men,  and  those  in  sympathy  with  organized 
labor  are  requested  not  to  patronize  Lindsay  and  Co.,  who 
are  engaged  in  the  wholesale  fruit  business,  also  distributors 
of  cigars  and  vegetables  of  all  kinds  in  Billings  and  vicinity, 
as  they  are  unfair.  We  urge  the  retail  merchants,  laboring 
men  and  all  who  are  in  sympathy  with  organized  labor  to 
place  themselves  in  position  to  patronize  friendly  wholesalers. 
We  further  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Lindsay 
and  Co.  are  operating  peddling  wagons  throughout  the  city, 
and  we  ask  the  people  to  guard  against  patronizing  these 
wagons.  We  ask  this  for  your  own  protection,  and  for  the 
protection  of  organized  labor." 

Circulars  were  distributed  broadcast  throughout  the  city, 
and,  as  a  result,  the  business  of  the  company  at  Billings  was 
practically  paralyzed,  and  great  financial  loss  followed.  A 
sweeping  injunction  was  issued  by  lower  courts.  This  was 
dissolved  by  the  Sup.  Ct.  In  giving  their  decision  the  court 
declared  that,  judging  from  the  facts  in  the  case,  it  might 
fairly  "be  said  to  have  been  shown  by  the  evidence  that,  upon 
the  adoption  of  the  resolution  of  October  25th,  and,  upon  the 
intelligence  of  that  action  becoming  general  among  union  men 
there,  it  was  understood  among  those  men  that  they  would 
not  patronize  Lindsay  and  Co.  while  the  interdict  was  in 
force,  and  would  not  patronize  any  one  who  did  patronize 
that  company,  and  that  they  expected  that  all  retailers  and 
others  in  sympathy  with  their  organizations  would  cease  trad- 
ing with  the  pi.  company."  Held  that  these  acts  constituted 
a  boycott.  However,  Judge  Holloway  averred  there  was  no 
unlawful  act  in  withdrawing  patronage  from  the  company; 
that  patronage  depends  on  good  will;  that,  as  it  was  not 
unlawful  for  an  individual  to  withdraw  his  patronage  from 
Lindsay  and  Co.,  or  from  any  other  concern  which  might  be 
doing  business  with  that  company,  for  any  reason,  it  was  not 


426  BOYCOTTS 

for  a  combination;  that  the  defendants  cannot,  therefore,  be 
enjoined  from  boycotting,  unless  they  use  unlawful  means; 
that  the  only  means  here  used  was  the  publication  of  the  cir- 
cular, and  that  a  court  of  equity  might  not  enjoin  the  publi- 
cation of  a  circular  of  this  character.  If  such  publication 
was  libelous,  it  could  be  reached  only  by  civil  or  criminal 
process. 

Nevada 

Statute  provides  against  combination  for  th«  injury  of  trade 
or  commerce,  but  allows  peaceful  assembly  for  the  purpose 
of  raising  wages.  The  one  boycott  case  decided  related  to 
the  I.  W.  W.  organization.  The  court  declared  that  boycotts, 
where  attended  by  threats,  intimidation  and  violence,  were  ac- 
tionable in  damages,  and  that  union  members  could  be  held. 

Statute:  Compiled  Laws,  1899,  entitled  "Labor  Agree- 
ments Not  Conspiracies."  Act  makes  illegal  conspiracy  of  two 
or  more  to  commit  acts  injurious  to  trade  or  commerce,  but 
provides  that  act  shall  not  prohibit  peaceable  and  orderly 
assembling  for  the  purpose  of  securing  an  advance  in  the  rate 
of  wages  or  the  maintenance  of  same.  Max.  punishment,  6 
mos.,  or  $1,000. 

Branson  v.  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  (1908). 
Civil  Action.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  For 
facts,  see  supra,  Ch.  VII.  Illegal.  Courts  held  defs.  guilty  on 
ground  that  some  of  threats  were  attended  with  violence  and  in- 
timidation, and  that  acts  were  not  covered  by  Sec.  4751,  inas- 
much as  they  were  not  done  in  pursuance  of  desire  to  raise 
wages,  nor  were  they  peaceful. 

New    Mexico 
No  statute  or  legal  decisions  noted. 

North    Dakota 

No  decisions  noted  in  highest  courts. 

Statutes:     Constitution,  Sec.  23,  entitled  "Interfering  with 


APPENDIX  427 

Employment."  Illegal  maliciously  to  interfere  with  employ- 
ment of  any  citizen.  Rev.  Code,  1905,  Sec.  8768,  Art.  5, 
entitled  "Conspiracy  against  Workingmen — Conspiring  to  In- 
terfere with  Trade,  etc."  Illegal  to  combine  to  interfere  with 
one  in  his  lawful  trade  or  calling,  or  doing  any  other  lawful 
act,  by  force,  etc.,  or  to  interfere  with  tools  or  property. 
(Probably  confined  to  workmen.)  Sees.  9434  and  9435,  en- 
titled "Intimidation  of  Employers  and  Employees."  Acts 
make  it  a  misdemeanor  to  interfere  with  employees  in  their 
employment  or  with  employers  in  the  conduct  of  their  business, 
by  threats,  force,  intimidation,  etc. 

Oregon 

Boycotts  accompanied  by  intimidation,  etc.,  illegal.  (Word 
"boycott"  not  used.)  Court  has  held  that  mere  threats  of 
boycotters  to  cease  to  patronize  third  party,  or  publication  of 
boycott  notices,  will  not  call  forth  an  injunction  unless  there 
is  a  likelihood  of  a  great  and  lasting  injury  by  an  illegal  act, 
but  that  such  acts  may  be  reached  by  civil  or  criminal  processes. 
A  trade  boycott,  where  intimidation  of  third  parties — em- 
ployees— was  purely  moral,  and  where  there  was  no  element 
of  monopoly,  was  declared  legal. 

Statutes:  Ann.  Code  and  St.  1902,  Sec.  197 1,  entitled 
"Intimidation,  etc.,  of  Employers  and  Employees."  Misde- 
meanor, any  interference  with  employees  in  continuing  or  per- 
forming work,  through  force,  threats,  or  intimidation,  and  the 
circulation  of  any  false  written  or  printed  matter  for  purpose 
of  securing  employment  or  discharge  of  any  one  or  the  alter- 
ing of  a  person's  mode  of  carrying  on  his  business.  Punish- 
ment,  I   to  6  mos.,  or  $10  to  $200. 

Longshore  Printing  Co.  v.  Howell  (1894).  For  Injunc- 
tion. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  (Also  Polit- 
ical Boycott.)  Injunction  Refused.  Def.,  president  of  the 
Multnomah  Typog.  Union,  ordered  dismissal  of  messenger 
boy.  Demand  refused,  def.  called  men  out;  union  published 
in  Oregonian  a  request  that  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  pi. 


428  BOYCOTTS 

company  was  a  non-union  office;  its  delegates  visited  patrons 
and  threatened  to  cease  dealings  if  they  did  not  withdraw; 
they  posted  notices  of  the  boycott,  and  threatened  members  of 
the  city  council  with  their  displeasure  at  the  polls  if  they 
gave  the  city  printing  to  the  pi.,  who  was  the  lowest  bidder. 
Two  customers  were  shown  to  have  withdrawn  during  several 
months.  Held  that  these  acts  did  not  show  likelihood  of 
irreparable  injury;  that  the  court  will  not  issue  an  injunction 
until  it  is  satisfied  that  the  case  before  it  is  a  right  about 
to  be  destroyed,  or  that  a  great  and  lasting, injury  is  about 
to  be  done  by  an  illegal  act,  and  that  the  acts  here  were  not 
so  direct  or  positive,  nor  so  persistently  and  wickedly  repeated 
and  maintained  when  taken  in  connection  with  accompanying 
incidents,  as  to  warrant  an  injunction.  It  inferred,  however, 
that  a  civil  or  criminal  action  could  be  brought. 

Union  Labor  Hospital  Ass'n  v.  Vance  Redwood  Lumber 
Co.  (191 1 ).  Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  Defs.,  employers  of 
labor,  as  a  result  of  agreement  on  a  certain  form  of  hospital 
relief,  gave  their  employees  tickets  which  would  admit  them 
to  4  hospitals  of  the  city,  excluding  pl.'s.  Held  that  no  mali- 
cious intent  to  injure  the  pl.'s  business  was  shown,  and  that, 
even  if  such  malice  existed,  defs.  exercised  a  legal  right,  and 
motive  under  these  conditions  was  immaterial;  that  intimida- 
tion of  employees  was  purely  moral,  and  not  illegal,  and  that 
no  element  of  monopoly  entered  into  case. 

South   Dakota 

Statutes:  No  decision  in  highest  court  noted.  Rev.  Code, 
1903,  Sec.  757  and  758,  entitled  "Intimidation  of  Employers 
and  Employees."  Act  makes  it  a  misdemeanor  to  interfere  by 
force,  etc.,  with  workers  in  their  employment,  and  employers 
in  the  conduct  of  their  business. 

Utah 
No  decisions. 
Statutes  and  Constitution:     Constitution,  Art.  12,  Sec.  19, 


APPENDIX  429 

entitled  "Interference  with  Employment."  The  malicious  in- 
terference by  any  person  with  the  employment  of  any  worker 
is  declared  a  crime.  Compiled  laws,  1907,  Sec.  1347  x,  en- 
titled "Interference  with  Employment."  Act  makes  misde- 
meanor interference  with  employment  of  one  engaged  in  labor. 
Sec.  4487  X  II,  entitled  "Interference  with  Employment — 
Intimidation."  Act  makes  misdemeanor,  threatening  to  de- 
stroy property,  or  to  do  bodily  harm  in  order  to  prevent  per- 
son from  entering  employment,  etc. 

Washington 

Coercion  of  workingmen  is  forbidden  by  statutes.  Courts 
have  enjoined  boycotts,  in  the  course  of  which  customers  are 
induced  maliciously  to  cease  trading,  and  the  public  at  large  is 
persuaded  by  the  boycotters,  gathered  around  the  establish- 
ment, not  to  patronize  the  concern.  An  employer's  boj^cott  is 
subject  to  civil  action  when  he  coerces  another  to  discharge  a 
workman. 

Statutes:  Acts  of  1909,  Chap.  249,  Sec.  130,  entitled 
"Conspiracy  against  Workingmen."  Act  declares  illegal  a 
conspiracy  of  two  or  more  to  prevent  another  from  exercising 
any  lawful  calling  or  doing  any  other  lawful  act,  by  force, 
threats,  or  intimidation,  or  from  interfering  with  his  tools. 
No  overt  act  need  be  proved.  Chap.  249,  Sec.  362,  entitled 
"Coercion  of  Workmen,"  etc.,  makes  illegal  attempt  to  in- 
timidate a  person  by  force  or  threats,  or  to  deprive  him  of 
his  tools  in  order  to  induce  him  to  do  or  abstain  from  doing 
a  lawful  act.  Code  1902,  Sec.  6518,  prohibits  intimidation 
in  case  of  coal  mines.      (Application  Doubtful.) 

Jensen  v.  Waiters'  Union  (1905).  For  Injunction.  Sec- 
ondary or  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal. 
Waiters  struck  against  proprietor  of  the  Hotel  Bismarck, 
Seattle,  whose  restaurant  had  a  capacity  of  550,  and  a  daily 
patronage  of  2,500  to  3,000  a  day,  on  account  of  the  employ- 
ment of  non-union  waiters.  Strikers  congregated  around  the 
restaurant  at  noon,  and  attempted  to  persuade  customers  not 


430  BOYCOTTS 

to  enter,  and  by  this  means  reduced  the  daily  receipts  $ioo 
to  $150  a  day.  Held  that  persons  having  no  legitimate  inter- 
est to  protect  could  not  ruin  the  business  of  another  by  mali- 
ciously inducing  patrons  and  other  persons  not  to  deal  with 
him,  and  by  congregating  about  his  place  and  there,  by  per- 
suasion or  force,  preventing  the  public  at  large  from  entering 
his  place  of  business.  Defs.,  however,  have  the  right  to  strike 
at  any  time,  and  to  state  publicly  their  grievances. 

Jones  V.  Leslie  (1910).  Civil  Action.  Employer's  Boy- 
cott. Illegal.  Def.,  for  whom  pi.  formerly  \^orked  in  Seattle 
as  teamster,  notified  his  patron  that  if  he  allowed  his  teamster, 
for  whom  pi.  was  then  employed,  to  continue  pl.'s  employment, 
he,  the  def.,  would  withdraw  his  patronage.  Held  that  this 
action  interfered  with  the  right  of  employment,  which  was  the 
laboring  man's  property,  and  was  actionable. 

Wyoming 
No  statutes  or  legal  decisions  noted. 


FEDERAL    CASES 

The  federal  courts  have  almost  unanimously  decided  that 
secondary  and  compound  boycotts  in  labor  disputes  are  illegal. 
Judge  Caldwell's  dissenting  opinion  in  the  Oxley  Stave  Case 
of  1897  well-nigh  stands  by  itself  in  its  liberal  character.  One 
court  has,  however,  affirmed  the  right  of  employees  to  strike 
or  threaten  to  strike  if  their  employer  continued  to  work  on 
material  supplied  by  another  firm  against  which  a  strike  was 
being  waged. 

Most  of  the  cases  in  the  eighties  and  nineties,  decided  by 
the  federal  courts,  dealt  with  boycotts  on  the  transportation 
system.  A  number  in  recent  years  have  involved  workers  in 
the  building  trades. 

While  boycotts  have  thus  been  considered  illegal,  labor  men 
claim  that  blacklists  have  virtually  been  legalized  by  the  de- 
cision in  the  Adair  Case,  in  which  that  portion  of  the  Erdman 


APPENDIX  431 

law  preventing  employers  from  discharging  employees,  on  ac- 
count of  their  membership  in  labor  unions,  was  declared  un- 
constitutional. Some  forms  of  trade  boycotts  were  also  de- 
clared legal. 

Among  the  U.  S.  Statutes  brought  to  bear  against  boycot- 
ting have  been  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law,  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Law  and  the  statute  against  conspiracy.  The  laws 
relating  to  the  interference  with  the  U.  S.  mails  have  also 
been  brought  into  play. 

For  Federal  Statutes  on  subject,  see  Chapter  XL 

U.  S.  V.  Kane  (1885).  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  D.  of  C.  For 
Contempt.  For  Injunction.  Intimidation  of  Workmen  (On 
Roads  of  Receiver).  Illegal.  Def.  was  cited  for  contempt 
for  interfering  with  railroads  in  the  hands  of  the  receiver. 
Employees  can  persuade  others  to  leave  employment,  but  if 
they  resort  to  intimidation  and  violence,  and  thus  prevent 
receiver  from  operating  his  road,  they  may  be  found  guilty  of 
contempt  of  court. 

In  re  Wabash  (1885)  and  In  re  Higgins,  1886,  similar  to 
above. 

Francis  v.  Flinn  (1886).  (U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.)  For  Injunc- 
tion. Trade  Boycott.  (Libelous  Circulars.)  Not  Enjoin- 
able.  Owner  of  a  pilot  boat  in  Mississippi  charged  that  defs. 
endeavored  to  destroy  his  business  by  publications  in  the  news- 
papers, suits  and  injunctions.  Held  that  if  the  pi.  was 
wrongly  interfered  with  he  could  secure  his  redress  at  law, 
and,  if  publications  were  false,  could  prosecute  for  libel;  that, 
if  the  court  could  interfere  by  means  of  an  injunction  in  such 
cases,  it  would  draw  to  itself  the  greater  part  of  the  litigation 
properly  belonging  to  courts  of  law. 

Old  Dominion  Steamship  Co.  v.  McKenna  (1887).  (U- 
S.  Circ.  Ct.,  S.  D.,  N.  Y.)  Civil  Action.  Compound  Boy- 
cott Involving  Patronage  and  Workmen.  Defs.,  members  of 
Longshoremen's  Union,  were  accused  of  procuring  workers  to 
leave  their  employment  in  a  body  in  order  to  compel  an 
increase  of  wages  given  to  Southern  negroes  and  also  of  de- 
terring merchants,  through  threats,  from  shipping  over  the  boy- 


432  BOYCOTTS 

cotted  lines.  An  action  was  brought  to  recover  $20,000  al- 
leged damages.  Held  a  misdemeanor,  at  common  law  as  well 
as  by  Sec.  168  of  Penal  Code  of  N.  Y.,  to  combine  to  interfere 
by  threats  with  freedom  of  employers  to  control  their  business. 

Emack  V.  Kane  (1888).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  N.  D.,  111.) 
For  Injunction.  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal.  Defs.  were 
charged  with  threatening  to  sue  for  infringement  those  per- 
sons dealing  with  pl.'s  patented  article.  Held  that,  where 
these  charges  of  infringement  of  patents  were  not  made  in 
good  faith,  but  with  intent  to  injure  pl.'s  business  by  intimi- 
dating customers,  court  of  equity  had  jurisdfbtion.  If  slander 
or  libel  were  purely  personal,  however,  redress  might  properly 
be  left  to  the  courts  of  law,  inasmuch  as  no  falsehood  could 
wholly  destroy  a  man's  reputation  with  those  who  knew  him. 

Callan  v.  Wilson  (1888).  (U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.)  Criminal 
Conspiracy.  Compound  Labor  Boycott.  Defs.  Entitled  to 
Trial  by  Jury.  Musicians  were  accused  of  refusing  to  work 
for  complainant,  of  persuading  others  to  refuse  to  work,. and 
of  threatening  firms  with  the  withdrawal  of  patronage  if  they 
continued  to  employ  musicians  not  members  of  the  Knights 
of  Labor  Council.  They  were  charged  with  conspiring  to 
prevent  another  from  pursuing  his  calling  anj^where  in  the 
United  States,  and  with  boycotting,  injuring,  molesting,  op- 
pressing, intimidating  and  reducing  him  to  want  and  beggary. 
Defs.  had  been  convicted  by  a  police  court.  The  Supreme 
Court  decided  police  court  was  without  constructive  power  to 
try,  convict  and  sentence,  and  that  defs.  were  entitled  to  trial 
by  jury  in  a  conspiracy  case. 

Casey  v.  Cincinnati  Typog.  Union  No.  3  (1891).  (U.  S. 
Circ.  Ct.,  S.  D.,  Ohio.)  For  Injunction.  Compound  Boy- 
cott Involving  Patronage.  (Circulars.)  Illegal.  Primary 
Boycott  Legal.  Defs.  struck  against  the  Commonwealth, 
newspaper  of  Covington,  Ky.,  for  refusal  to  unionize  shop, 
and  issued  handbills  and  circulars  to  advertisers  declaring  that 
the  failure  on  their  part  to  withdraw  their  advertising  would 
mean  the  loss  of  the  support  of  organized  labor.  They  urged 
newsdealers  to  cease  to  handle  pl.'s  paper,  and  organized  labor 


APPENDIX  433 

to  cease  to  patronize  advertisers.  Two  firms  were  induced 
to  withdraw  advertising,  the  loss  being  estimated  at  $150  a 
month.  Defs.  denied  having  visited  pl.'s  customers.  Held 
that  equity  will  enjoin  publications  in  pursuance  of  a  boycott, 
and  that  the  acts  of  the  def.  were  coercive  in  their  nature 
and  in  restraint  of  trade.  They  declared,  however,  that  the 
unions  had  the  right  to  say  that  their  members  would  not 
patronize  complainant. 

Cceur  d'Alene  Consolidated  and  Mining  Co.  v.  Miners' 
Union  of  Wardner  (1892).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  D.,  Ida.) 
For  Injunction.      (Chiefly  strike  and  picketing.) 

U.  S.  v.  Patterson  (1893)-  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  D.,  Mass.) 
(Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law.)  Compound  Trade  Boycott. 
Not  Prohibited  by  Law\  Def.  was  indicted  for  violating  the 
Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law  by  threatening  prospective  custom- 
ers with  actions  for  infringements  of  patents,  by  harassing  and 
intimidating  purchasers,  inducing  them  to  break  contracts, 
etc.  Held  that  this  statute  only  makes  illegal  conspiracy  to 
restrain  trade  by  engrossing,  monopolizing,  or  grasping  the 
market;  that  the  statute  must  be  interpreted  as  a  whole;  that 
the  second  section  is  limited  by  its  terms  to  monopoly,  and 
evidently  has  as  its  basis  the  engrossing  and  control  of  the 
market;  that  the  first  section  is  evidently  in  pari  materia,  and 
so  has  the  same  basis,  and  that  it  is  not  sufficient,  therefore, 
simply  to  allege  a  purpose  to  drive  certain  competitors  out  of 
the  field  by  violence,  intimidation,  or  otherwise. 

"If  the  intention  of  the  statute  was  that  claimed  by  the 
United  States,  I  think  that  the  nature  of  the  phraseology 
would  have  been  *to  injure  trade,  to  restrain  trade,'  declared 
the  judge.  We  are  now  at  the  point  where  the  paths  sep- 
arate. ...  If  the  proposition  made  by  the  United  States  is 
taken  with  its  full  force,  the  inevitable  result  will  be  that  the 
federal  courts  will  be  compelled  to  apply  this  statute  to  all 
attempts  to  restrain  commerce  among  the  states,  or  commerce 
with  foreign  nations  by  strikes  or  boycotts,  and  by  every 
method  of  interference  by  way  of  violence  and  intimidation. 
It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  Congress  intended  thus  to  extend 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of   the   United   States  without 


434  BOYCOTTS 

very  clear  language.  Such  language  I  do  not  find  in  the 
statute.  Therefore  I  must  conclude  that  there  must  be  alleged 
in  the  indictment  that  there  was  a  purpose  to  restrain  trade 
as  implied  in  the  common  law,  expressing  'contract  in  restraint 
of  trade'  analogous  to  that  of  'monopoly'  in  the  second  section." 

Toledo,  Ann  Arbor  and  No.  Michigan  Ry.  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania Co.,  Lake  Shore  and  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  (1893). 
(U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  N.  D.,  Ohio.)  For  Contempt.  Injunction. 
(Involving  Inters.  Com.  Law.)  Compound  Boycott  Involv- 
ing Patronage.  Refusal  to  Receive  Cars  from  or  Deliver  Cars 
to  Boycotted  Road.  Illegal.  Facts  given  in  Chap.  VI.  En- 
gineer refused  to  move  trains  until  permitted  by  union  lead- 
ers. Held  that,  "if  one  quits  in  good  faith,  absolutely  and 
unconditionally,  under  such  circumstances  as  are  now  under 
consideration,  he  is  exercising  a  perfect  right  which  cannot  be 
denied  him.  But  so  long  as  he  continues  in  the  service,  so 
long  the  power  of  the  court  to  compel  him  to  discharge  all 
the  duties  of  his  position  is  unquestioned  and  will  be  exer- 
cised." 

U.  S.  V.  Workingmen's  Amalg.  Council  (1893).  (U.  S. 
Circ.  Ct.,  E.  D.,  La.)  For  Injunction.  (Involving  Sherman 
Anti-Trust  Law.)  (First  Application  of  Sherman  Law  to 
Labor  Disputes.)  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Workmen. 
(Sympathetic  Strike.)  Illegal.  In  dispute  between  ware- 
housemen and  draymen  and  their  employees,  arising  from  re- 
fusal to  employ  only  union  men,  the  Amalgamated  Council 
threatened  to  withdraw  men  in  the  subordinate  unions  until 
differences  were  adjusted,  and  succeeded  in  doing  this,  and  in 
stagnating  the  commerce  of  the  section.  Held  that  the  il- 
legality consisted  in  the  endeavor  to  prevent  and  the  prevent- 
ing of  everybody  from  moving  the  commerce  of  the  country; 
that  congress,  in  passing  the  Sherman  Law,  meant  to  deal 
with  the  whole  evil  of  combination  in  its  entirety. 

Toledo,  Ann  Arbor  and  No.  Michigan  R.  R.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania Co.  et  al.  (1893).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  N.  D.,  Ohio, 
Judge  Taft.)     For  Injunction.     Facts  stated  in  Chapter  VI. 

Judge  Taft  decided  that  the  issuance  of  the  boycott  order 


APPENDIX  435 

by  Arthur  was  in  violation  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act, 
which  provides  (Par.  2,  Sec.  3)  that  each  road  shall  give 
equal  facilities  to  every  other  connecting  road,  and  declared 
(Sec.  10,  as  amended)  that  any  corporation  or  its  agent  who 
disobeys  this  provision,  or  who  shall  abet  such  disobedience, 
shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  subject  to  a  fine  not 
exceeding  $5,000. 

He  asserted  that  a  locomotive  engineer  was  an  agent  within 
the  meaning  of  the  act,  and  was  guilty  of  violating  its  pro- 
visions if  he  refused  to  handle  freight,  etc.,  with  or  without 
the  orders  of  his  principal.  He  averred  that  defs.  were  also 
guilty  of  a  conspiracy  to  commit  an  offense  against  the  U.  S., 
and  subject  to  the  penalty  of  Sec.  5440>  Rev.  St. 

If  Sec.  10  referred  to  managing  agents,  there  would  never- 
theless be  a  violation  of  the  law.  Judge  Taft  contended,  for 
any  one,  though  not  an  officer  or  agent,  succoring  and  abetting 
or  procuring  such  officer  or  agent  to  violate  the  section,  would 
be  punishable  under  it  as  principal,  and  Arthur  and  others, 
if  succeeding  in  procuring  managing  officers  to  refuse  to  handle 
the  cars,  were  guilty.  And,  if  one  is  found  guilty,  all  con- 
spiring with  that  one  are  also  guilty. 

The  judge  further  held  that  the  inducing  of  another  to  do 
an  unlawful  act  by  threat  of  withholding  labor  was  unlawful 
and  subject  to  the  injunction. 

Waterhouse  v.  Comer  (1893)-  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  W.  D., 
Ga.,  S.  D.,  Judge  Emory  Speer.)  Compound  Boycott  In- 
volving Patronage.  (Involving  Interstate  Commerce  Law 
and  Sherman  Law.)  Illegal.  During  a  strike  on  the  Savan- 
nah, Americus  and  Montgomery  R.  R.,  an  engineer  of  the 
Georgia  R.  R.,  in  the  hands  of  a  receiver,  refused  to  transport 
cars  of  the  Savannah  railroad  and  was  discharged.  The  Br. 
of  Locomotive  Engineers  applied  to  have  the  former  contract 
of  employment,  with  certain  modifications,  remain  in  force. 
Held  that  such  a  contract  could  be  made,  but  the  boycotting 
section  (Sec.  12)  would  not  stand,  as  it  violated  the  Anti- 
Trust,  the  I.  C.  Law  and  the  statute  against  conspiracy  which 


436 


BOYCOTTS 


prevented  the  restraining  of  trade.     The  judge  concluded  his 
opinion  with  the  following  remarkable  statement: 

"In  the  presence  of  these  statutes  which  we  have  cited,  and 
in  view  of  the  intimate  interchange  of  commodities  between 
peoples  of  several  states  of  the  union,  it  will  be  practically 
impossible  hereafter  for  a  body  of  men  to  combine  to  hinder  or 
delay  the  work  of  transportation  companies  without  becoming 
amenable  to  the  provisions  of  these  statutes." 

Dueber  Watch  Case  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Howard  Watch  Co. 
(1893).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  S.  D.,  N.  Y.,  Judge  Coxe.) 
Trade  Boycott.  (Involving  Sherman  Law.)  Legal.  Def. 
stated  to  patrons  of  pi.  that  he  would  not  sell  his  watches 
to  any  who  bought  from  pi.  Held  that  it  was  not  in  violation 
of  the  Sherman  law  to  combine  to  agree  not  to  sell  to  dealer 
who  agrees  to  purchase  goods  of  another  designated  trader 
in  the  same  business. 

Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 
(1894).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  E.  D.,  Wis.,  Judge  Jenkins.) 
For  Injunction.     Strike  against  Receiver's  Railroad.     Illegal. 

U.  S.  V.  Agler  (1894).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  Ind.,  Judge 
Baker.)  For  Contempt.  Injunction.  (Involving  Sherman 
Law.)  Injunction  Binding  against  One  Not  Served.  Def. 
was  charged  with  contempt  of  court  for  disobeying  an  in- 
junction. Held  that  Sherman  law  conferred  jurisdiction 
over  the  courts  to  restrain  violation  of  acts,  and  that  an 
injunction  was  binding  as  against  one  not  served  with  a  sub- 
poena or  named  when  injunction  was  served  on  him  as  one 
of  the  unknown  defs.  named  in  bill.  Here,  however,  charge 
lacked  certainty,  as  it  was  not  alleged  that  def.  aided  in 
A.  R.  U.  strike. 

In  Re  Grand  Jury  (1894).  (U.  S.  Dist.  Ct.,  S.  W.,  Cal., 
Judge  Ross.)  Criminal  Conspiracy.  (Interference  with 
U.  S.  Mails.)  Refusal  of  Railroads  to  Run  Separate  Cars 
not  Illegal.  In  Pullman  strike  (see  Chap.  VI)  court  de- 
clared that  the  railroads  were  not  obliged  to  leave  off  cars, 
if  same  would  not  be  moved  by  employees,  and  run  the  rest. 


APPENDIX  437 

When  the  regular  passenger  trains  are  designated  for  carry- 
ing mail,  the  failure  of  the  railroad  to  run  others  for  that 
purpose  is  not  a  violation  of  the  provision  against  the  obstruc- 
tion and  interruption  of  mails. 

In  Re  Grand  Jury  (1894).  (Dist.  Ct.,  N.  D.,  111.,  Gross- 
cup.)  Criminal  Conspiracy.  Insurrection.  (Involving  In- 
terst.  Com.  Law  and  U.  S.  Mails.)  Instructions  concerning 
U.  S.  mail  and  interference  w^ith  interstate  commerce  similar 
to  other  cases.  Any  demand  that  others  quit  service,  unless 
those  demanding  are  clothed  with  lawful  authority,  is  illegal, 
if  it  constitutes  an  injury  to  the  U.  S.  mails  or  to  interstate 
commerce.  The  judge  also  charged  that,  if  the  mails  were 
wilfully  obstructed,  and  attempted  arrests  were  opposed  in 
such  a  way  as  to  constitute  a  general  uprising,  an  insurrec- 
tion was  established. 

In  Re  Grand  Jury  (1894)-  (U.  S.  Dist.  Ct.,  N.  D.,  Cal., 
Judge  Morrow.)  Criminal  Conspiracy.  (Involving  Sher- 
man Law  and  U.  S.  Mails.)  Illegal.  In  Pullman  strike 
(see  Chap.  VI). 

Defs.  charged  with  and  declared  guilty  of  interfering  with 
U.  S.  mails,  as  they  prevented  passenger  cars,  ordinarily  con- 
nected with  mail  cars,  from  running.  Judge  Drummond 
said: 

**It  is  not  practicable,  as  a  general  thing,  for  a  railroad  to 
transport  a  mail  car  by  itself,  because  that  would  be  attended 
by  serious  loss,  so  that,  while  nominally  they  (the  defendants) 
permit  the  mail  car  to  go,  they  really,  by  preventing  the  tran- 
sit of  other  passenger  cars,  interfere  with  the  transportation 
of  the  mails." 

Ex  Parte  Lennon  (1894).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  App.  6  C.) 
Habeas  Corpus.  In  Pullman  strike  James  Lennon  sought 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  declared  that  he  had  not  been 
served  with  the  injunction  writ.  Held  that  it  was  not  neces- 
sary that  this  writ  should  be  served,  but  only  that  the  def. 
had  knowledge  that  it  had  been  made. 

U.  S.  V.  Elliott  et  al.  (1894).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  E.  D., 
Mo.,  Judge  Phillips.)     For  Injunction.     (Involving  Sherman 


438  BOYCOTTS 

Law.)  In  Pullman  strike  ft  was  charged  that  defs.  violated 
the  Sherman  law  by  interfering  with  operation  of  all  railroads 
coming  into  St.  Louis.  A  temporary  injunction  had  been 
issued  by  Judge  Thayer  (62  Fed.  801).  Ct.  held  that  the 
Sherman  Anti-Trust  Act  applied  to  prevent  combinations  by 
railroad  employees  to  prevent  all  the  railroads  of  a  large  city, 
engaged  in  carrying  U.  S.  mails  and  interstate  commerce,  from 
carrying  freight  and  passengers,  etc. 

Thomas  v.  Cinn.,  N.  O.,  and  Texas  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  (In  re 
Phelan)  (1894).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  S.  C,  Ohio,  Judge 
Taft.)  For  Contempt.  Injunction.  (Involving  Conspir- 
acy, Sherman  Law,  Interference  with  U.  S.  Mails,  Breaking 
of  Contracts.)  In  Pullman  Strike  Coercing  Railroad  Re- 
ceiver to  Withdraw  Patronage  from  Pullman  Company 
through  Fear  of  Strike.  Connected  with  Pullman  Strike,  see 
Chap.  VI.  Injunction  had  been  issued  against  Phelan  and 
others  for  boycotting,  etc.  The  court  held  that  Phelan  was 
conspiring  to  do  an  unlawful  act,  and  that,  in  disobeying  the 
injunction,  he  was  guilty  of  contempt.  The  combination 
sought  to  compel  the  railroad  companies  to  break  their  con- 
tracts with  Pullman.    Judge  Taft  declared; 

"All  the  employees  had  the  right  to  quit  their  employment, 
but  they  had  no  right  to  combine  to  quit  in  order  thereby  to 
compel  their  employer  to  withdraw  from  a  mutually  profitable 
relation  with  third  party  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  that  third 
person  when  the  relation  thus  sought  to  be  broken  had  no 
effect  whatever  on  the  character  or  reward  of  their  service." 

He  also  characterized  the  boycott  as  malicious  and  as  con- 
stituting a  violation  of  the  Sherman  law  and  of  the  statute 
forbidding  interference  with  U.  S.  mails.  The  doctrine  of 
free  speech,  he  averred,  would  not  prevent  the  issuance  of  an 
injunction  against  continuing  the  boycott. 

U.  S.  V.  Debs  (1894).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  N.  D.,  111., 
Judge  Wood.)  For  Injunction.  Contempt.  Involving 
Sherman  Law,  Interference  with  U.  S.  mails  and  Interstate 
Commerce.     Illegal.     Facts  given  in  Chapter  VI.     Held  that 


APPENDIX  439 

the  Sherman  law  condemned  all  combinations  if  they  be  in 
restraint  of  trade  and  not  merely  trusts.  Interference  with 
transportation  and  travel  by  rail  was  also  worked  out. 

In  Re  Debs  (1895)-  (U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.,  Justice  Brewer.) 
Interference  with  Interstate  Commerce  and  Transmission  of 
the  Mails.     Illegal.     Facts  and  opinion  stated  in  Chap.  VI. 

Arthur  v.  Oakes  (1894).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  Apps.)  For 
Injunction.  Strike  against  Receiver.  Violation  of  Contracts. 
Illegal.  Charge  was  made  that  defs.  procured  others  to  quit 
service  in  violation  of  contracts.  Held  that  combination  to 
induce  such  leaving  of  service  of  receiver  by  the  use  of  intimi- 
dation was  illegal;  that  here  the  methods  used  should  be  de- 
scribed more  specifically. 

Dueber  Watch  Case  Mfg.  Co.  v.  E.  Howard  Watch  and 
Clock  Co.  et  al.  (1895).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  Apps.,  2  C.) 
Civil  Action.  Trade  Boycott.  Legal.  See  Dueber,  etc., 
supra.  Held  that  it  was  not  in  violation  of  the  Sherman  Anti- 
Trust  Law  prohibiting  monopoly  for  one  to  agree  not  to  sell 
goods  to  firms  purchasing  of  pi.  in  order  to  get  pi.  to  join 
with  def.  in  fixing  arbitrary  prices,  as  the  combination  did 
not  include  all  manufacturers  of  watches,  but,  at  the  most, 
resulted  in  only  partial  restraint  of  an  article  not  a  prime 
necessity. 

Continental  Insurance  Co.  v.  Bd.  of  Fire  Underwriters  of 
the  Pacific  et  al.  (1895).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  N.  D.,  Cal., 
Judge  McKenna.)  For  Injunction.  Trade  Boycott.  Il- 
legal. One  of  agents  of  the  associated  companies  stated  that 
he  had  authority  to  cancel  certain  policies  of  outside  com- 
panies, and  to  rewrite  them  at  lower  rates,  when,  in  fact,  he 
had  no  such  authority,  and  he  threatened  to  boycott  the  agents 
and  customers  of  such  outside  companies  unless  they  withdrew 
their  patronage.  Held  that  these  acts  were  illegal  and  would 
be  enjoined. 

U.  S.  V.  Cassidy  (1895).  (U.  S.  Dist.  Ct.,  N.  D.,  Cal., 
Judge  Wm.  W.  Morrow.)  Criminal  Conspiracy.  (Involv- 
ing U.  S.  Mail  and  Restraint  of  Interstate  Commerce.)  Il- 
legal.   This  was  an  indictment  in  Pullman  strike  against  John 


440  BOYCOTTS 

Cassidy  and  others  under  Rev.  St.  5440  for  a  conspiracy  to 
obstruct  the  mail  of  the  United  States,  and  a  combination 
and  conspiracy  to  restrain  trade  and  commerce  between  the 
states  of  the  union  and  with  foreign  countries.  A  number  of 
acts  of  violence  were  also  charged.  It  was  said  that  this  was 
the  longest  charge  ever  delivered  in  a  criminal  case  in  the 
country,  and  was  only  exceeded  in  any  case  by  the  charge  of 
Lord  Chief  Justice  Cockburn  in  the  Tichborne  Case.  In  the 
course  of  his  charge  the  judge  declared  a  strike  unlawful,  if 
used  to  boycott  a  third  party  or  to  obstruct,  mail  or  restrain 
trade.  After  4  days  and  nights  of  deliberation  the  jury  failed 
to  agree,  and  defs.  were  discharged. 

Blumenthal  v.  Shaw  (1897)-  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  Apps.,  3 
C,  Del.,  Judge  Acheson.)  Blacklist.  Illegal.  PI.  was  dis- 
charged from  factory  in  Wilmington,  Del.,  and,  on  going  the 
rounds  of  factories,  was  refused  employment  on  account  of 
the  request  made  by  the  def.     Held  action  illegal. 

Oxley  Stave  Co.  v.  Hopkins  (1897).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct. 
Apps.,  8  C.) 

Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal.  (Strong 
Dissenting  Opinion.)  Defs.  struck  against  pis.  for  placing 
machine-made  hoop  barrels  in  their  establishment,  and  re- 
quested the  trade  and  unionists  not  to  buy  nor  to  purchase 
goods  packed  in  these  barrels.  Held  that  this  combination 
deprived  one  of  right  to  run  business  as  he  thought  best 
through  threats  and  intimidation,  and  was  unlawful.  Judge 
Caldwell  dissented,  declaring  that  workers  were  within  their 
rights  to  refuse  to  purchase  certain  goods  and  to  induce  others 
to  do  likewise,  as  long  as  peaceful  means  were  employed;  that 
the  serving  of  notice  that  they  would  discontinue  the  purchase 
did  not  constitute  a  threat;  that  combination  did  not  intro- 
duce an  illegal  element;  that  the  fact  that  labor  had  no 
present  complaint  against  its  wages,  etc.,  did  not  signify 
that  its  action  was  without  proper  motive,  and  that  the  use 
of  the  injunction  against  such  a  combination  would  deprive 
labor  of  employing  the  same  methods  of  competition  as  are 
resorted  to  by  capital.    Finally,  if  the  courts  of  equity  assumed 


APPENDIX  441 

the  right  to  enjoin  "defs.  from  withdrawing  their  patronage 
and  support  from  pL,  it  is  not  perceived  why  it  cannot,  by 
mandate  of  injunction,  make  it  obligatory  upon  the  defs.  to 
purchase  the  pl.'s  barrels  and  their  contents  and  persuade 
others  to  do  the  same.  The  invasion  of  the  natural  rights  of 
personal  liberty  of  the  def.  would  be  no  greater  in  the  one 
case  than  in  the  other." 

Chiatovich  v.  Hanchett  (1900).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  of  Apps., 
9  C,  Nev.)  Trade  Boycott.  (Coercing  Employees.)  Il- 
legal. PI.  charged  def.  with  publishing  a  notice  asking  his 
employees  to  desist  from  trading  with  him,  and  of  thus  dam- 
aging him  to  the  extent  of  $10,000.  Held  that  this  was  a 
malicious  interference  with  the  business  of  another,  and  il- 
legal ;  that,  however,  a  primary  boycott  was  legal.  The  court 
added  that  the  motive  was  material  when  one  violated  the 
right  of  another. 

U.  S.  v.  Haggerty  (1902).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  W.  Va.) 
For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Employees. 
(Chiefly  Picketing.)  Union  men  held  meetings  near  homes 
of  employees  urging  workers  to  strike.  Held  that  such  meet- 
ings intimidated  employees,  and  that  courts  can  restrain  com- 
bination formed  to  induce  contented  employees  to  strike  for 
purpose  of  inflicting  injury  on  business. 

Boyer  et  al.  v.  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.  (1903). 
(U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  E.  D.,  Mo.,  Judge  James  H.  Rogers.) 
Blacklist.  Legal.  PL,  a  member  of  the  Commercial  Tel- 
egraphers' Union  of  Local  Lodge  No.  3,  of  St.  Louis,  alleged 
that  he  had  been  discharged  by  pi.  because  he  was  a  member 
of  the  union,  and  had  not  been  able  to  procure  work  else- 
where because  of  the  possession  by  the  def.  of  a  book  which 
gave  the  cause  of  pl.'s  discharge,  and  because  of  the  conveying  of 
such  information  to  other  employers.  Held  that  def.  had  the 
right  to  discharge  pi.  for  any  cause,  and  the  mere  keeping 
of  a  record  of  such  discharge  and  the  giving  of  such  information 
to  others  was  not  an  illegal  act. 

"In  the  absence  of  such  contract  relations,  any  employer  may 
legally  discharge  his  employee,"   insisted  the  court,   "v\ith  or 


442  BOYCOTTS 

without  notice  at  any  time.  It  is  not  unlawful,  in  the  absence 
of  contract  relations  to  the  contrary,  to  discharge  them  for 
that  (for  belonging  to  the  union)  or  for  any  other  reason,  or 
for  no  reason  at  all.  .  .  .  Can  a  court  of  equity  grant  relief 
to  a  man  who  says  for  his  cause  of  action  that  he  belongs  to  a 
reputable  organization,  and  that  he  has  been  discharged  solely 
because  he  did  belong  to  it;  that  his  employer  who  discharged 
him  keeps  a  book  on  which  he  placed  his  name,  and  has  set 
opposite  thereto  the  fact  that  he  discharged  him  solely  because 
he  belonged  to  such  an  organization,  and  that  he  gives  that 
information  to  other  persons  who  refuse  to  employ  him  on  that 
act?"  • 

The  court  concluded  that,  in  view  of  the  honorable  posi- 
tion occupied  by  the  union  to  which  pi.  belonged,  it  was  not 
unlawful  to  keep  such  a  book  or  to  notify  others  of  its  con- 
tents. 

Seattle  Brewing  and  Malt  Co.  v.  Hansen  (1905).  (U.  S. 
Circ.  Ct.,  of  Cal.,  N.  D.,  Judge  James  H.  Beatty.)  For 
Injunction.  Secondary  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  (Cir- 
culars.) Illegal.  Defs.,  on  strike,  issued  a  circular  bearing 
"Organized  Labor  and  Friends,  Don't  Drink  Scab  Beer." 
The  circular  named  certain  brands  which  were  unfair,  and 
used  other  signs,  followed  by  admonition,  "Guard  your  health 
by  refusing  to  drink  unfair  beer."  Held  that  these  circulars 
"tended  unfairly  to  obstruct  the  business  of  the  complainant" 
and  to  intimidate  timid  people. 

Aikens  v.  Wisconsin  (1905).  (U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.,  Justice 
Holmes.)  Criminal  Conspiracy.  Trade  Boycott.  Illegal. 
The  Journal  Company,  a  corporation  in  Milwaukee,  raised 
advertising  rates  25  per  cent.,  and  the  managers  of  the 
other  newspapers  in  the  city  combined,  agreeing  to  charge 
a  proportional  increase  to  advertisers  who  paid  to  the  Journal 
the  increased  rates.  Defs.  were  convicted  under  Sec.  4466a 
of  the  Sts.  of  Wisconsin,  which  imposes  imprisonment  or  fine 
on  any  "two  or  more  persons  who  shall  combine  ...  for 
the  purpose  of  wilfully  and  maliciously  injuring  another  in 
his  reputation,  business,  trade  or  profession,  by  any  means 
whatsoever,"   etc.     An   attempt  was  made  to  have  this  lav/ 


APPENDIX  443 

declared  unconstitutional  on  the  ground  that  it  was  in  conflict 
with  the  14th  amendment.  Justice  Holmes  upheld  the  statute, 
declaring  that  the  legislature  had  the  privilege  of  preventing 
malicious  injury  of  others.  He  interpreted  "maliciously  in- 
juring" as  ''doing  harm  malevolently  for  the  sake  of  the 
harm  as  an  end  in  itself,  and  not  merely  as  a  means  to  some 
further  end  legitimately  desired." 

Loewe  et  al.  v.  California  Fed.  of  Labor  et  al.  (1905). 
(U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  N.  D.,  Cal.)  For  Injunction.  Compound 
Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Facts  similar  to  those  related 
in  Chap.  IX,  concerning  the  Danbury  Hatters.  Labor  unions 
of  California  assisted  the  hatters  and  concentrated  their  boy- 
cott against  Trieste  and  Co.,  of  San  Francisco,  dealers  in 
Loewe's  hats.  Held  direct  purpose  was  that  of  injury,  and 
that  combination  was  an  unlawful  interference  with  the  busi- 
ness of  another.  A  sweeping  injunction  was  thereupon  issued 
forbidding  various  forms  of  boycotting. 

Huttig  Sash  and  Door  Co.  v.  Fuelle  (1906).  (U.  S. 
Circ.  Ct.,  Judge  Trieber.)  For  Contempt.  Injunction. 
Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal.  Members 
of  the  Br.  of  Carpenters  and  Joiners,  on  strike,  in  an  en- 
deavor to  induce  contractors  to  purchase  from  union  firms, 
issued  a  booklet  containing  names  of  firms  and  dealers  work- 
ing under  an  agreement  with  the  District  Council,  and  a 
notice  that  any  material  not  constructed  under  strict  union 
conditions  would  not  be  handled  by  members  of  that  union. 
Judge  Thayer  in  1904  had  enjoined  the  defs.  from  boycotting 
the  complainant  and  from  giving  notice  to  any  firm  to  decline 
to  purchase  materials  of  any  sort  from  complainant  under 
threats  that  if  such  purchases  were  made  they  would  cause 
persons  in  the  employ  to  quit  work.  They  were  also  enjoined 
from  inducing  persons  to  decline  employment,  because  the 
firm  employing  might  have  purchased  material  from  com- 
plainant.    Held  defendants  guilty  of  contempt. 

Montgomery  Ward  and  Co.  v.  So.  Dakota  Retail  Mer- 
chants', Etc.,  Ass'n  (1907).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  So.  Dak.) 
For  Injunction.     Trade  Boycott.     Legal.     Retail  Merchants' 


444  BOYCOTTS 

Ass'n  agreed  not  to  purchase  from  wholesalers  or  jobbers  who 
sold  goods  to  catalog  or  mall  order  houses.  Def.,  editor  of 
a  paper  favoring  the  Retail  Merchants,  published  several  ar- 
ticles, including  a  letter  from  the  secretary  of  the  association, 
in  which  it  was  said  that  the  secretary  could  not  come  to  any 
other  conclusion  than  that  they  (the  wholesalers  and  jobbers 
selling  to  the  catalog  houses)  prefer  the  business  of  the 
catalog  houses  to  that  of  the  retailers  of  the  state.  Held 
that  this  editor  could  not  be  enjoined,  as  he  used  but  mere 
persuasion.  It  was  also  declared  that  the  right  to  do  business 
included  the  right  to  buy  as  well  as  to  sell,  and  that  the  retail 
merchants  had  a  right  to  agree  not  to  purchase  merchandise 
from  wholesalers  or  jobbers  who  sold  to  catalog  or  mail 
order  houses,  and  to  inform  those  who  sold. 

Shine  et  al.  v.  Fox  Brothers  Mfg.  Co.  (1907).  (U.  S. 
Circ.  Ct.  of  App.,  8  D.,  Judge  Wm.  C.  Hook.)  For  In- 
junction. Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  Illegal. 
This  case  was  brought  from  the  Circ.  Ct.  for  the  E.  Dis.  of 
Mo.  An  organizer  of  the  Carpenters'  and  Joiners'  Union 
was  sent  to  St.  Louis  to  assist  in  the  organization  of  the 
trimmers.  About  90  per  cent,  of  the  carpenters  were  organ- 
ized. There  were  23  open  shops  where  trimming  was  done, 
employing  about  1,000  employees,  only  four  of  whom  were 
members  of  the  union.  These  shops  produced  about  80  per 
cent,  of  the  trimming  used  in  the  city.  The  organizer  and 
delegate  from  the  central  organization  visited  pi.  and  urged 
him  to  place  his  shop  under  union  regulations  and  to  dis- 
charge those  employees  who  refused  to  join  the  union.  Upon 
pl.'s  refusal,  defs.  had  lists  printed  and  adopted  similar  measures 
to  those  employed  in  the  boycott  against  the  Huttig  Sash 
Co.,  supra.  In  some  instances  they  called  a  strike  on  the  firm 
purchasing  of  pi.  They  frequently  forced  contractors,  through 
fear  of  cessation  of  work,  to  sign  contracts  stating  that  hence- 
forth they  would  deal  only  with  union  concerns,  and  in  one 
instance  fined  a  contractor  as  well  as  union  workmen  on  a 
building,  the  latter  for  refusing  to  quit  work  when  directed  by 
def.,  and  placed  on  the  "We  Don't  Patronize"  list  firms  which 


APPENDIX  445 

allowed  non-union  trim  to  be  used  in  the  construction  of  their 
buildings.  Held  that  this  was  a  similar  case  to  that  of  Hopkins 
V.  Oxley  Stave  Co.,  and  directed  that  the  order  of  the  Circuit 
Court  be  affirmed. 

Rocky  Mountain  Bell  Telephone  Co.  v.  Montana  Feder- 
ation of  Labor  (1907).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  Mont.,  Judge 
Hunt.)  For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving 
Patronage.  (Threatening  Circulars.)  Illegal.  Employees, 
on  strike  against  the  company,  distributed  circulars  stating 
that  firm  was  "unfair,"  "legalized  highwaymen,"  "scabs." 
Defs.  exhorted  people  not  to  patronize,  and  voted  to  give 
patronage  only  to  certain  firms  because  others  had  refused  to 
stop  using  complainant's  telephones.  They  were  quoted  as 
saying:  "We  will  win  or  put  the  corporation  out  of  busi- 
ness." Held  that  acts  of  the  defs.  constituted  intimidation 
and  a  threat  to  ruin  the  business  of  the  pi.  unless  he  yielded, 
and  resulted  in  an  unlawful  conspiracy  to  interfere  with  and 
destroy  lawful  business  of  another;  that  the  pi.  was  therefore 
entitled  to  an  injunction  to  restrain  the  prosecution  of  the 
conspiracy  by  such  methods. 

Goldfield  Consolidated  Mines  Co.  v.  Goldfield  Miners' 
Union  No.  220  (1908).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  Nev.)  Chiefly 
Picketing.  Illegal  (when  intimidation).  Held  that  workers 
can  persuade  men  to  quit  employment,  but  cannot  use  threats 
or  compel  them  to  listen  to  arguments  against  their  will. 

U.  S.  v.  Raish  et  ai.  (1908).  (U.  S.  Dist.  Ct.,  So.  D., 
111.,  Judge  Humphrey.)  Criminal  Action.  Secondary  Boycott 
Involving  Patronage.  Attempt  to  Defraud  by  Use  of  Post 
Office.  Illegal.  Pending  enlargement  of  the  plant  of  the 
complainant,  the  carpenters'  union  demanded  that  all  of  those 
working  on  the  new  building  should  be  union  men,  and,  on 
refusal  of  the  company,  imposed  a  fine  of  $500.  The  union 
representatives  stated  that  that  fine  would  be  remitted  if  only 
members  of  the  carpenters'  union  were  employed  on  the  job, 
otherwise  the  complainant  would  suffer  a  boycott.  Letters 
were  afterwards  sent  to  complainant's  customers  asking  them 
not   to   handle   its   product,   and   defs.   were   indicted   for   an 


446  BOYCOTTS 

attempt  to  defraud  by  use  of  the  post  office,  under  Sec.  5480 
of  the  federal  statutes.  The  first  count  in  the  indictment  de- 
clared that  the  defs.,  officers  of  the  union,  endeavored  to 
induce  the  company  to  pay  a  fine  under  threat  of  a  boycott, 
and  that  the  scheme  contemplated  the  use  of  the  mail.  The 
second  and  third  counts  charged  that  the  defs.  would,  through 
use  of  the  mails,  cause  a  boycott  to  be  put  in  force  against 
the  business  of  the  Wahlfield  Mfg.  Co.,  and  thus  injure  that 
company  in  its  business.  Held  that  the  statute  was  violated 
if  either  of  those  counts  was  proved.     Jury  Ijeld  defs.  guilty. 

Iron  Molders  v.  Allis  Chalmers  Co.  (1908).  (U.  S.  Circ. 
Ct.  App.,  7  Circ,  Wis.,  Judge  Walker.)  For  Contempt.  In- 
junction. Intimidating  Workmen.  Chiefly  picketing,  and 
violation  of  injunction  preventing  picketing,  accompanied  by 
an  attempt  to  intimidate. 

Adair  v.  U.  S.  (1908).  (U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.)  Blacklist  (so- 
called).  Legal.  O.  B.  Coppage,  a  locomotive  fireman  em- 
ployed by  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  R.  R.,  was  discharged 
by  William  Adair,  a  master  mechanic  in  employ  of  this  road, 
Oct.  15,  1906,  because  he  was  a  member  of  the  Br.  of  Loco- 
motive Firemen.  Adair  was  indicted,  charged  with  violat-ing 
the  lOth  Sec.  of  the  Erdman  law,  an  act  passed  by  Congress 
June  I,  1898  (30  Stat,  at  L.  424,  Chap.  370,  U.  S.  Comp. 
Stat.,  1 901,  p.  3205),  which  made  it  illegal  "to  threaten  any 
employee  with  loss  of  employment,"  or  to  "discriminate 
against  any  employee  because  of  his  membership  in  such  a 
labor  corporation,  association  or  organization."  The  lower 
court  held  that  this  section  was  constitutional  (152  Fed.  737). 
The  defendant  was  therefore  found  guilty  and  ordered  to  pay 
a  fine  of  $100.  The  case  was  appealed  to  the  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct. 
Here  the  section  was  declared  unconstitutional,  the  judgment 
was  reversed,  and  the  case  dismissed. 

The  court  held  that  the  provisions  against  discrimination 
were  repugnant  to  the  fifth  amendment  of  the  constitution, 
which  declared  that  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  liberty  or 
property  without  due  process  of  law;  that  "such  liberty  and 
right  embraced  the  right  to  make  contracts  for  the  purchase 


APPENDIX  447 

of  thq  labor  of  others,  and  equally  the  right  to  make  contracts 
for  the  sale  of  one's  own  labor,"  so  long  as  this  right  did  not 
prove   inconsistent  with   the  public  interests. 

"It  is  not  within  the  functions  of  government — at  least  in 
the  absence  of  contract  between  the  parties — to  compel  any 
person,  in  the  course  of  his  business  and  against  his  will,  to 
accept  or  retain  the  personal  services  of  another,  or  to  compel 
any  person,  again<?t  his  will,  to  perform  personal  services  for 
another.  The  right  of  a  person  to  sell  his  labor  upon  such 
terms  as  he  deems  proper  is,  in  its  essence,  the  same  as  the 
right  of  the  purchaser  of  labor  to  prescribe  the  conditions  upon 
which  he  will  accept  such  labor  frorn  the  person  offering  to 
sell  it.  ...  In  all  such  particulars  the  employer  and  em- 
ployee have  equality  of  right,  and  any  legislation  that  disturbs 
that  equality  is  an  arbitrary  interference  with  the  liberty  of 
contract  which  no  government  can  legally  justify  in  a  free 
land." 

Judge  Harlan  claimed  that  Congress  could  not  pass  such  a 
law  under  the  general  power  of  regulating  interstate  com- 
merce, *'as  there  is  no  such  connection  between  interstate  com- 
merce and  membership  in  a  labor  organization."  He  also 
averred  that,  paramount  as  is  the  power  of  Congress  to  regu- 
late interstate  commerce,  "it  cannot  be  exerted  in  violation 
of  any  fundamental  right  secured  by  any  other  provisions  of 
the  Constitution." 

Justice  Holmes,  in  a  dissenting  opinion,  claimed  that  the 
relation  of  labor  unions  to  interstate  commerce  was  at  least 
as  intimate  a  one  as  that  of  safety  couplers  and  the  liability 
of  master  to  servant;  that  the  provision  w^as  a  very  limited 
interference  with  freedom  to  contract,  as  it  did  not  require 
the  carriers  to  employ  anyone  or  forbid  them  to  refuse  to 
employ  anyone;  that  the  application  of  the  fifth  amendment 
had  been  stretched  to  the  extreme,  in  his  opinion,  and  that  the 
provision  might  very  well  have  been  passed  by  Congress  as 
good  public  policy. 

"Where  there  is,  or  generally  is  agreed  to  be,  an  important 
ground  of  public  policy  for  restraint,  the  Constitution  does 
not   forbid   it    (the   right   to    restrain    freedom   of   contract), 


448  BOYCOTTS 

whether  this  court  agrees  or  disagrees  with  the  policy  pur- 
sued." 

The  justice  averred  that  such  a  provision  might  be  effective 
in  preventing  strikes,  and  fostering  arbitration,  and  that,  even 
though  it  resulted  only  in  a  closed  shop,  it  would  not  be  un- 
warranted for  Congress  to  assume  that  the  results  would  be 
for  the  social  advantage. 

Citizens'  Light,  Heat  and  Power  Co.  v.  Montgomery  Light 
and  Water  Power  Co.  (1909).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  Ala.)  Defs. 
were  charged  with  persuading  pl.'s  customers  to  break  their 
contracts,  guaranteeing  them  against  liability.  Held  at  com- 
mon law,  a  trader,  to  get  other  man's  customers,  could  use 
any  means  not  involving  violation  of  the  criminal  laws  or 
amounting  to  fraud,  duress  or  intimidation,  or  the  wrongful 
inducing  of  the  breach  of  contract. 

Iron  Molders'  Union  v.  Allis-Chalmers  Co.  (1909).  (U. 
S.  Circ.  Ct.  App.,  Judge  Baker,  Judge  Grosscup  concurring.) 
Case  originally  from  Wisconsin.  For  Injunction.  Coercing 
Patrons  to  Withdraw  Patronage  Through  Fear  of  Strike. 
Legal.  During  course  of  strike,  defs.  procured  iron  molders 
in  other  foundries,  who  were  also  members  of  the  Iron  Mold- 
ers' Union,  to  refuse  to  make  the  castings  of  the  Chalmers 
Company.  These  molders  notified  their  employers  that,  unless 
the  latter  cancelled  his  contracts  with  pis.,  they  (the  em- 
ployees) would  strike.  Held  that  such  action  was  legal.  Judge 
Baker  declared; 

"If  appellee  had  the  right  (and  we  think  the  right  was  per- 
fect) to  seek  the  aid  of  fellow  foundrymen  to  the  end  that  the 
necessary  element  of  labor  should  enter  into  appellee's  product, 
appellant  had  the  reciprocal  right  of  seeking  the  aid  of  fellow 
molders  to  prevent  that  end.  To  whatever  extent  employers 
may  lawfully  combine  and  cooperate  to  control  the  supply  and 
conditions  of  work  to  be  done,  to  the  same  extent  should  be 
recognized  the  right  of  workmen  to  combine  and  cooperate  to 
control  the  supply  and  the  conditions  of  the  labor  that  is 
necessary  to  the  doing  of  the  w^ork.  In  the  fullest  recognition 
of  the  equality  and  mutuality  and  their  restrictions  lies  the  peace 
of  capital  and  labor,  for  so  they,  like  nations  with  equally  well 


APPENDIX  449 

drilled  and  equipped  armies  and  navies,  will  make  and  keep 
treaties  of  peace,  in  the  fear  of  the  cost  and  consequences  of 


war. 


Irving  V.  Joint  District  Council,  U.  Br.  of  Carpenters,  etc. 
(1910).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  So.  D.,  N.  Y.,  Judge  Ward.) 
For  Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage. 
Illegal.  Carpenters  and  Joiners  endeavored  to  compel  Irving 
and  Casson,  who  had  a  factory  in  Massachusetts  for  the  pro- 
duction of  fine  woodwork,  to  run  a  closed  shop.  Letters  were 
sent  by  the  officers  of  the  union  to  a  number  of  present  and 
prospective  customers  stating  that  the  firm  was  unfair,  and 
threatening  to  take  off  union  workers  from  jobs  for  which  pi. 
furnished  some  of  the  material.  Held  that  these  acts  were 
illegal,  and  that  defs.  could  not  legally  combine  "for  the  pur- 
pose of  calling  out  the  workmen  of  other  employers  who  have 
no  grievances  or  to  threaten  owners,  builders  and  architects 
that  their  contracts  will  be  held  up  if  they,  or  any  of  their 
subcontractors,  use  the  complainant's  trim."  The  court,  there- 
fore, affirmed  the  granting  of  the  temporary  injunction. 

Grenada  Lumber  Co.  v.  Mississippi  (1910).  (U.  S.  Sup. 
Ct.,  Judge  Burton.)  Civil  Action.  (Sherman  Law.)  Trade 
Boycott.  Illegal.  An  association,  consisting  of  77  retail  deal- 
ers in  lumber,  sash,  etc.,  doing  business  in  La.  and  Miss., 
agreed  not  to  purchase  any  material  or  supplies  from  manu- 
facturers and  wholesale  dealers  selling  directly  to  consumers 
and  from  certain  other  specified  concerns.  Sup.  Ct.  of  Miss, 
declared  that  this  combination  was  condemned  by  Sec.  5002 
of  the  Miss.  Code,  prohibiting,  among  other  things,  trusts  and 
monopolies.  Appeal  was  taken  on  the  ground  of  the  statute's 
unconstitutionality.  U.  S.  Sup.  Court  held  law  constitutional; 
that  the  combination  of  the  defs.  prevented  the  enjoyment  of 
freedom  of  contract,  and  that  actions,  harmless  when  done  by 
one  man,  may  involve  a  public  wrong  when  done  by  many. 

Kolley  V.  Robinson  (1911).  (U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  App.)  Com- 
pound Boycott  Involving  Workmen.  Chiefly  Picketing.  Il- 
legal.    Held   unlawful   for  workmen   to  induce  those  taking 


450  BOYCOTTS 

their  places  to  quit,  by  actual  assaults  or  threats.     (Originally 
from  Missouri.) 

BUCK'S    STOVE    CASE 

Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Co.  v.  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  et  al.  (Dec.  i8,  1907.)  (Sup.  Ct.,  D.  of  C.)  For 
Injunction.  Compound  Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  (**We 
Don't  Patronize"  List.)  Coerce  Patrols  to  Withdraw 
Patronage  from  Boycotted  Firm.  Illegal.  Facts  in  Chap. 
VIII.  Held  that  actions  of  defs.  constituted  an  illegal  con- 
spiracy, as  they  interfered,  without  justifiable  cause,  with 
freedom  of  pi.  and  customers  to  buy  and  sell;  that  the  fact 
that  the  ultimatp  end  in  view  was  to  benefit  defs.  did  not  work 
out  justification,  as  the  immediate  motive  was  that  of  punish- 
ment and  injury;  that  actions  of  combination  might  be  illegal, 
although  they  would  be  legal  if  done  by  a  single  individual; 
that  boycotting  unlawfully  interfered  with  property  rights,  as 
business  was  property  within  the  meaning  of  the  law.  Nor 
could  it  be  said  that  the  right  of  freedom  of  the  press  was 
infringed  by  the  injunction,  since  the  publication  was  a  step  in 
a  criminal  plot.     Sweeping  Injunction  issued  by  Judge  Gould. 

The  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Co.  v.  The  A.  F.  of  L.  (Dec. 
23,  1908).  (Sup.  Ct.,  D.  of  C.)  For  Contempt.  Illegal. 
Justice  Wright  reviewed  facts  of  the  boycott,  and  concluded 
that  defs.  had  been  guilty  of  crime  under  the  common  law, 
inasmuch  as  they  had  brought  about  a  breach  of  pl.'s  existing 
contracts  with  others  and  deprived  pi.  of  good  will  or  prop- 
erty. They  furthermore  had  been  guilty  of  a  crime  defined 
by  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  law,  as  they  had  restrained  trade 
and  commerce  among  the  several  states.  The  judge  affirmed 
that  Gompers,  Mitchell  and  Morrison,  the  three  defs.,  had,  in 
advance,  determined  to  violate  the  injunction,  and  had  violated 
it.  He  took  the  same  position  on  the  question  of  interference 
with  property  rights  and  on  the  question  of  freedom  of  speech 
as  did  Judge  Gould. 

Finally,  he  contended  that  the  injunction  order  was  neither 


APPENDIX  451 

void  nor  erroneous,  as  had  been  alleged,  but  that,  admitting 
that  the  court  had  fallen  into  error,  the  "duty  and  necessity 
of  obedience  remained  nevertheless  the  same." 

Samuel  Gompers,  John  Mitchell  and  Frank  Morrison  v^ere 
sentenced  to  12,  9,  and  6  months,  respectively. 

The  A.  F.  of  L.  v.  The  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Co.  (Mar. 
II,  1909).  (Ct.  of  App.,  D.  of  C.)  For  Injunction.  Com- 
pound Boycott  Involving  Patronage.  ("We  Don't  Patronize" 
List.)  Illegal.  (Injunction  Affirmed  in  Modified  Form.) 
Judge  Robb  declared  the  issuance  of  an  injunction  w^as  proper. 
He  took  virtually  the  same  position  as  did  Judge  Gould  re- 
garding the  unlawfulness  of  combined  action,  the  question  of 
the  right  to  enjoin  free  speech  and  press,  and  the  illegality  of 
the  immediate  object  of  def.'s  combination,  and  declared  that 
it  placed  an  unreasonable  obstruction  in  the  course  of  trade. 
Physical  coercion  did  not  need  to  be  proved  to  make  acts 
illegal.  The  injunction  issued  by  Judge  Gould,  however,  in 
the  opinion  of  Judge  Robb,  was  too  broad  and  was  therefore 
modified.^ 

Gompers  et  al.  v.  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Company  (Nov. 
2,  1909).  (Ct.  of  Apps.,  D.  of  C.)  For  Contempt.  Illegal. 
Judge  Van  Orsdel  decided  that  the  contempt  was  a  criminal 
and  not  a  civil  one,  and  that,  in  the  absence  of  a  bill  of  ex- 
ceptions, the  court  must  "assume  that  the  evidence  was  suffi- 
cient to  establish  the  truth  of  each  charge  contained  in  the 
petition,  of  which  the  trial  justices  found  the  defendants 
guilty."  The  inquiry  was  therefore  limited  to  one  of  law. 
The  court  refused  to  pass  upon  the  question  as  to  whether 
defs.  could  be  considered  guilty  of  contempt  if  they  disobeyed 
only  those  portions  of  the  injunction  which  the  Court  of 
Appeals  had  reversed,  claiming  that  "the  petition  charges  a 
direct  violation  of  those  provisions  of  the  original  decree  which 
were  on  appeal  affirmed  and  approved  by  the  court." 

Chief  Justice  Shepard  dissented,  observing  that  the  contempt 
proceeding  might  be  regarded  as  ancillary  to  the  main  suit, 

*  See  Chap.  VIII. 


452  BOYCOTTS 

and  that,  therefore,  the  evidence  might  be  considered.  He 
contended  that  "upon  the  assumption  that  each  and  all  of  the 
defs.  committed  some  acts  in  violation  of  the  injunction,  both 
as  originally  issued  and  as  modified  on  appeal,"  the  decree 
should  be  reversed  and  the  case  remanded  for  trial  upon 
evidence  confined  to  the  real  question  involved. 

It  was  his  opinion,  however,  that  the  specific  acts  charged 
against  Gompers  and  Morrison  related  wholly  to  declarations 
and  publications  which  violated  the  preliminary  injunction  as 
issued,  and  that  a  decree  rendered  in  excess  of  the  power  of 
the  court — a  power  limited  by  express  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution—  (regarding  freedom  of  speech  and  press),  was  ab- 
solutely void. 

Samuel  Gompers  et  al.  v.  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Co. 
(May  15,  1911).  (U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.)  For  Contempt.  Dis- 
missed. Held  that  "this  was  a  proceeding  for  civil  contempt 
where  the  only  remedial  relief  possible  was  a  fine  payable  to 
the  complainant,"  and  that  there  "was  therefore  a  departure — 
a  variance  between  the  procedure  adopted  and  the  punishment 
imposed,  when,  in  answer  to  a  prayer  for  remedial  relief,  in 
the  equity  cause,  the  court  imposed  punitive  sentence  appro- 
priate only  to  a  proceeding  at  law  for  criminal  contempt." 
The  court  contended,  in  support  of  this  position,  that  the  case 
was  entitled  "Buck's  Stove,  etc.,  v.  Samuel  Gompers  et  al.'' 
and  not  "United  States  v.  Samuel  Gompers  et  al./'  and  that 
the  contempt  proceedings  were  instituted,  entitled,  tried,  and 
up  to  the  moment  of  sentence  treated  as  a  part  of  the  original 
cause  in  equity.    It  continued: 

"The  Buck's  Stove  and  Range  Company  was  not  only  the 
nominal  but  the  actual  party  on  the  one  side,  with  the  defen- 
dants on  the  other.  The  Buck's  Stove  Co.  acted  throughout 
as  complainant  in  charge  of  the  litigation.  As  such,  and 
through  its  counsel,  acting  in  its  name,  it  made  consents, 
waivers,  and  stipulations  only  proper  on  the  theory  that  it 
was  proceeding  in  its  own  right  in  an  equity  cause,  and  not 
as  a  representative  of  the  United  States  prosecuting  a  case  of 
criminal  contempt.  It  appears  here  also  as  the  sole  party  in 
opposition  to  the  defendants;    and  its  counsel,   in   its  name, 


APPENDIX  453 

have  filed  briefs  and  made  arguments  in  this  court  in  favor- 
ing affirmance  of  the  judgment  of  the  court  below." 

The  court  held  also  that  the  complainant  made  each  of  the 
defendants  a  w^itness  for  the  company,  and  as  such  each  was 
required  to  testify  against  himself — a  thing  which  would  prob- 
ably not  have  been  suffered  if  the  case  had  been  regarded  as 
one  in  criminal  contempt.  The  petition  prayed,  furthermore, 
that  "the  petitioner  may  have  such  other  and  further  relief 
as  the  nature  of  its  case  may  require,"  not  for  punitive  punish- 
ment. The  court  therefore  reversed  the  judgment,  "but  with- 
out prejudice  to  the  power  and  right  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  D.  of  C.  to  punish,  by  a  proper  proceeding,  contempt, 
if  any,  committed  against  it."  In  the  early  part  of  the  de- 
cision Judge  Lamar  affirmed  the  position  of  the  other  judge 
regarding  the  power  to  restrain  publications  in  pursuance  of 
a  boycott,  disagreed,  however,  with  the  court  below,  in  its 
claim  that  the  judgment  should  be  affirmed  if  there  was  one 
valid  count,  and  declared  that  the  judgment  should  be  re- 
versed if  it  should  appear  that  the  defs.  had  been  sentenced 
on  any  count  which  did  not  constitute  a  disobedience  of  the 
injunction. 

In  Re  Gompers  et  al.  (June  24,  191 2).  (Sup.  Ct.,  D.  of 
C,  Justice  Wright.)  Contempt.  Illegal.  Facts  stated  in 
Ch.  VIII.  Court  rehearsed  at  length  the  original  case  and  the 
alleged  contempt;  vigorously  denounced  defendants  for  the 
bold  and  unsubmissive  attitude  they  assumed,  declaring  that 
the  contempt  committed  by  at  least  one  of  the  defendants  was 
"an  open  and  bold  deliberate  attack  upon  the  foundations  of 
society  and  the  law,"  and  ended  by  doling  out  to  them  the 
original  sentence. 

In  Re  Gompers  et  aL  (May  5,  1913).  (Ct.  of  App.,  D.  of 
C,  Justice  Van  Orsdel.)  Contempt.  Illegal.  Facts  in  Ch. 
VIII.  Held  that  the  lower  court  had  the  legal  right  to  hold 
the  defendants  in  contempt,  but  that  the  sentence  was  exces- 
sive, and  that  the  Court  of  Appeals  had  the  right  to  reduce 
such    sentence.      A   reduction  was  therefore  made,    Gompers 


454  BOYCOTTS 

being  sentenced  to  thirty  days  in  jail,  and  Mitchell  and  Mor- 
rison being  fined  $500  each,  and  in  default  of  payment  to  be 
confined  in  jail  until  released.  Justice  Shepard  again  dis- 
sented. He  claimed  that  the  criminal  contempt  charged  con- 
stituted an  ofifense  against  the  United  States,  and  was  there- 
fore subject  to  the  bar  of  the  Statute  of  Limitations. 


DAN  BURY   HATTERS'    (MSE 

Loewe  v.  Lawlor  (Feb.  3,  1908).  (U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.)  (In- 
volving Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law.)  Compound  Boycott  In- 
volving Patronage.  Illegal.  Facts  stated  in  Chapter  IX. 
Held  that  boycott  of  hatters  was  combination  in  restraint  of 
trade,  and  thus  in  violation  of  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law 
which  prohibits  "any  combination  whatsoever  to  secure  action 
which  essentially  obstructs  the  free  flow  of  commerce  between 
the  states,  or  restricts,  in  that  regard,  the  liberty  of  the  trader 
to  engage  in  business."  In  reply  to  the  argument  that  the 
acts  of  defendants  did  not  affect  interstate  commerce,  the  court 
averred : 

"If  the  purpose  of  the  combination  were,  as  alleged,  to 
prevent  any  interstate  transportation  at  all,  the  fact  that  the 
means  operated  at  one  end  before  physical  transportation  com- 
menced and  at  the  other  end  after  physical  transportation 
ended  was  immaterial." 

"Nor  can  the  act  in  question  be  held  inapplicable  because 
defendants  were  not  themselves  engaged  in  interstate  com- 
merce. The  act  made  no  distinction  between  classes.  It  pro- 
vided that  'every'  contract,  combination,  or  conspiracy  in 
restraint  of  trade  was  illegal.  The  records  of  Congress 
show  that  several  efforts  were  made  to  exempt,  by  legis- 
lation, organizations  of  farmers  and  laborers  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  act,  and  that  all  efforts  failed,  so  that  the  act 
remained  as  we  have  it  before  us.    .    .    ." 

"The  only  inquiry  is  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  averments 
of  fact.  ...  It  appears  from  the  declaration  that  it  is 
charged  that  defendants  formed  a  combination  to  directly  re- 
strain   pl.'s    trade;    that    the    trade    to    be    restrained    was 


APPENDIX  455 

interstate;  that  certain  means  to  attain  such  restraint  were 
contrived  to  be  used  and  employed  to  that  end;  that  those 
means  were  so  used  and  employed  by  the  defendants,  and  that 
thereby  they  injured  people's  property  and  business.  .  .  . 
We  think  a  case  within  the  statute  was  set  up  and  that  the. 
demurrer  should  have  been  overruled." 

Lawlor  et  al.  v.  Loewe  et  al.  (May  8,  iQii).  (U.  S. 
Circ.  Ct.  App.,  2nd  C.)  Damages  for  Violation  of  Sherman 
Anti-Trust  Law.  Judgment  Reversed.  Defs.,  who  were  de- 
clared guilty  of  violating  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law  in  the 
Circ.  Ct.  in  Connecticut,  appealed,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that 
the  action  of  the  court  was  improper  in  taking  from  the  jury 
the  duty  of  determining  the  liability  of  the  various  defendants 
for  the  acts  of  the  officers  and  agents  of  the  union.  Held 
that  the  trial  judge  was  in  error  in  taking  the  case  from  the 
jury  that  the  mere  fact  that  an  individual  was  a  member 
of  and  contributed  money  to  the  treasury  of  the  United  Hat- 
ters' Ass'n  did  not  make  him  the  principal  of  any  and  all 
agents  who  might  be  employed  by  the  officers  in  carrying  out 
the  objects  of  the  association,  and  responsible  as  principal  if 
such  agents  used  illegal  means  or  caused  illegal  methods  to  be 
used  in  undertaking  to  carry  out  those  objects. 

**The  clause  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  Hatters, 
which  provides  that  certain  of  the  oflBcers  'shall  use  all  the 
means  in  their  power  to  bring  such  shops  (non-union)  into 
the  trade,'  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  these  officers  shall 
use  other  than  lawful  means  to  accomplish  such  object,"  de- 
clared the  court.  ''Surely  the  fact  that  an  individual  joins 
an  association  having  such  a  clause  in  its  constitution  cannot 
be  taken  as  expressing  assent  by  him  to  the  perpetuation  of 
arson  and  murder.  Something  more  must  be  shown,  as,  for 
instance,  that  with  the  knowledge  of  the  members  unlawful 
means  had  been  so  frequently  used  with  the  express  or  tacit 
approval  of  the  association,  that  its  agents  were  warranted  in 
assuming  that  they  might  use  such  lawful  means  in  the  future, 
that  the  association  and  its  individual  members  would  approve 


456  BOYCOTTS 

or  tolerate  such  use  whenever  the  end  sought  to  be  obtained 
might  be  best  obtained  thereby." 

While  the  court  admitted  that  a  mass  of  testimony  had 
been  given  by  the  complainants  tending  to  show^  agency,  it 
stated  that  many  of  the  defendants  declared  their  ignorance  of 
the  boycott,  and  that  it  was  the  function  of  the  jury  to  deter- 
mine their  credibility.  It  also  declared  that  evidence  of  the 
payment  of  dues  was  not  competent  for  showing  ratification, 
and  that  certain  hearsay  evidence  should  bf  excluded.  The 
judgment  was  therefore  reversed,  and  the  petition  for  a  rehear- 
ing denied. 

For  later  developments,  see  Chap.  IX. 


LIST   OF  LEGAL   DECISIONS 

Aberthaw  Construction  Co.  v.  Cameron,  Massachusetts,  1907, 

80  N.  E.,  478,   194  Mass.,  208 362 

Adair  V.  U.  S.,  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.,  1908,  208  U.  S.,  161 

46,  235,  446-7 
Aikens  v.  Wisconsin,  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.,   1905,   195  U.  S.,  194, 

25  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.,  3 50,  198,  442-3 

Albro  J.  Newton  Co.  v.  Erickson,  New  York,   191 1.      126 

N.  Y.  Supp.,   1 1 1 1 333 

Allen  V.  Flood,  England,  1898,  67  L.  J.  Q.  B.,   119,  23  Q. 

B.  D.,  614 190,  218,  221,  244 

Allis  Chalmers  Co.  v.  Iron  Molders'  Union  No.  125,  U.  S. 

Circ.  Ct.    (Wis.),   1906.     150  Fed.,   155. 
American  Federation  of  Labor  v.  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co., 

Ct.  of  App.,  D.  of  C,  1909,  33  App.  Cases,  D.  of  C, 

83,  37  Washington  Law  Rep.,  154 183,  186,  199,  451 

Arbour  v.   Trade  Ass'n,   Philadelphia,    19 10,   44   Pa.   Super. 

Ct.,  240 386 

Arthur  v.  Oakes,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  of  App.,  1894,  63  Fed.,  310.  . 

Atkms  V.  W.  &  A.  Fletcher  Co.,  New  Jersey,   1903,  55  Atl., 
1074,  65  N.  J.  Eq.,  658 45,  369 


APPENDIX      .  457 

Badger  Brass  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Daly,  Wisconsin,  1909,  119  N.  W., 
328,  137  Wis.,  601 405-6 

Baker  v.  Metropolitan  Life  Insurance  Co.,  Kentucky,  1901, 
64  S.  W.,  913,  23  Ky.  L.  R.,  1 174 410-11 

Baldwin  v.  Escanaba  Liquor  Dealers'  Ass'n,  Michigan,  191 1, 
130  N.  W.,  214,  162  Mich.,  703 395 

Barnes  &  Co.  v.  Chicago  Typographical  Union  No.  10,  Illi- 
nois, 1908,  83  N.  E.  940,  232  111.,  424..  188,  190,  327, 

390-1 

Barr  v.  Essex  Trades  Council,  New  Jersey,  1894,  30  Atl., 
881,  53  N.  J.  Eq.,  loi 178^  183,  190,  i95,  270,  368 

Beattie  v.  Callanan,  New  York,  1901,  67  App.  Div.,  14, 
73  N.  Y.  Supp.,  518,  1903,  82  App.  Div.  7,  81  N.  Y. 
Supp.,   413 377 

Beck  et  al.  v.  Railway  Teamsters'  Protective  Union,  Mich- 
igan, 1898,  77  N.  W.  13,  118  Mich.,  497. -187,  196,  394-5 

Berry  v.  Donovan,  Massachusetts,  1905,  74  N.  E.,  603,  188 
Mass.,  353 361 

Bixby  V.  Dunlap,  New  Hampshire,  1876,  22  Am.  Rep.,  475, 
56  N.  H.,  456 362 

Blumenthal  v.  Shaw,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  of  App.,  1897,  77  Fed., 

954 440 

Bohn  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Hollis,  Minnesota,  1893,  55  N.  W.,  11 19, 

54  Minn.,  223 50,  178,  201,  212,  223,  396 

Booth  V.  Burgess,  New  Jersey,  1906,  65  Atl.,  226,  72  N.  J. 

Eq.,  181 369-70 

Boutwell  et  al.  v.  Marr  et  al.,  Vermont,  1899,  42  Atl.,  607, 

71  Vt.,  I 196,  364 

Bowen  v.  Hall,   1881,   50  L.  J.  Q.  B.,  305,   Law  Rep.,  6, 

&  B.  D.,  333 190 

Bowen  v.  Matheson,  Massachusetts,  1867,  14  Allen,  499.  .178 
Boyer  v.  Western   Union   Telegraph    Co.,    U.    S.    Circ.    Ct. 

(Mo.),  1903,  124  Fed.,  246 46,  441-2 

Brace   Bros.   v.   Evans,    Pennsylvania,    1888,    5    Pa.   Co.    Ct. 

Rep.,  163 197,  384 

Branson  v.  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,  Nevada,  1908, 

95  Pac,  354,  30  Nev.,  270 426 


458  BOYCOTTS 

Brennan  v.  United  Hatters,  N.  A.  Local  No.  17,  New  Jer- 
sey, 1906,  65  Atl.,  165,  73  N.  J.  Law,  729 369 

Brewster  v.  Miller's  Sons,  Kentucky,  1897*  4i  S.  W.,  301, 
loi  Ky.,  368 410 

Brown  v.  American  Freehold  Land  Mortg.  Co.,  Texas,  1904, 
80  S.  W.,  985,  97  Tex.,  599 417 

Brown  v.  Jacobs'  Pharmacy  Co.,  Georgia,  1902,  41  S.  E.' 
553,  115  Ga.,  433 50,  409,  417-8 

Buchanan  v.  Barnes,  Pennsylvania,  1894,  28  Atl.,  195 385 

Buchanan  v,  Kerr,  Pennsylvania,  1894,  28  Atl.,  195,  159 
Pa.  St.,  433 385 

Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co.  v.  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
et  al.  Sup.  Ct.,  D.  of  C,  1907,  35  Wash.  Law  Rep., 
797,  70  Al.  L.  J.,  8 178,  185,  188,  199,  450 

Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co.  v.  A.  F.  of  L.,  Sup.  Ct.,  D.  of  C, 
1908,  36  Wash.  Law  Rep.,  822 185,  450-1 

Buck's  Stove,  etc.     See  also  under  A.  F.  of  L.,  Gompers. 

Buffalo  Lubricating  Oil  Co.  v,  Chas.  M.  Everest,  New  York, 
1883,  30  Hun.,  586.  (Affirmed  without  decision,  95 
N.  Y.,  674,  1884.) 371 

Bulcock  v.  St.  Anne's  Master  Builders'  Federation  et  al., 
England,  1902,  19  Times  L.  R.,  27 243 

Burke  v.  Fay,  Missouri,  1908,  107  S.  W.,  408,  128  Mo.  App., 
690 400 

Butterick  Pub.  Co.  v.  Typog.  Union  No.  6,  New  York,  1906, 
100  N.  Y.  Supp.,  292,  50  Misc.,  1 381 

Callan  v.  Wilson,  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.,  1888,  127  U.  S.,  540.  .432 

Carew  v.  Rutherford,  Massachusetts,   1870,    106  Mass.,   i.. 

177,  187,  359 
Carter  v.  Oster,  Missouri,   1908,   112  S.  W.,  995,    134  Mo. 

App.,  146 400 

Casey  v.  Cinn.  Typographical  Union  No.  3,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct. 

(Ohio),  1891,  45  Fed.,  135 432-3 

Chiatovich  v.  Hanchett,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  App.   (Nev.),  1900, 

loi   Fed.,  742 441 

Chipley  v.  Atkinson,  Florida,  1887,  i  So.,  934,  23  Fla.,  206.  . 

407 


APPENDIX  459 

Citizens'  Light,  Heat  &  Power  Co.  v.  Montgomery  Light  & 
Water  Power  Co.,   U.  S.  Circ.   Ct.    (Ala.),   IQ09,   171 

Fed.,   553 448 

Clemmitt  v.  Watson,  Indiana,  1895,  144  Ind.  App.,  38. .  .392 
Coeur  d'Alene  Consolidated   Mining   Co.   v.   Miners'   Union, 

U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  (Idaho),  1892,  51  Fed.,  260 433 

Cohen  V.  United  Garment  Workers,   New  York,    1901,    72 

N.  Y.  Supp.,  341,  35  Misc.,  748 377-8 

Collins  V.  American  News  Co.,  New  York,   1902,  74  N.  Y. 

Supp.,  1 123,  68  N.  Y.  App.  Div.,  639 50,  377 

Commonwealth    v.    Carlisle,    Philadelphia,     1821,    Brightley 

N.  P.,  36 184 

Commonwealth  v.  Hunt,  Massachusetts,  1842,  38  Am.  Dec, 

346,  4  Mete,  III 177 

Continental    Insurance   Co.   v.   Board   of   Fire    Underwriters 

of  the  Pacific  et  al.,  California,  19 12,  67  Fed.,  316.  .439 
Coons  V.  Chrystie,  New  York,   1898,  53  N.  Y.  Supp.,  668, 

24  Misc.,  296 375 

Cote  V,  Murphy,  Pennsylvania,  1894,  28  Atl.,   190,   159  Pa. 

St.,  419 50,  178,  384-5 

Crump  V.  Commonwealth,  Virginia,   1888,  2  S.  E.,  620,   84 

Va.,   927 418-9 

Curran  v.  Galen,  New  York,  1897,  4^  N.  E.,  297,   152  N. 

Y.,   33 374 

Daily  v.  Superior  Court,  California,   1896,  44  Pac,  458,    12 

Cal.,  94 229,  421 

Davis   (W.   P.)    Mach.  Co.  v.  Robinson,  New  York,   1903, 

84  N.  Y.  Supp.,  837,  41  Misc.,  329 379-80 

Davis  v.   New   England   R.   Pub.   Co.,   Massachusetts,    1909, 

89  N.  E.,  565,  203  Mass.,  470 362 

Davis  V.  Starrett,  Maine,  1903,  55  Atl.,  516,  97  Me.,  568.  . 

358 
Davis  V.  U.   Portable  Hoisting  Eng.,   New  York,    1898,   28 

App.  Div.,  396,  51  N.  Y.  Supp.,  180 374-5 

Davis  V.  Zimmerman,  New  York,  1895,  36  N.  Y.  Supp.,  303, 

91   Hun.,  489 374 


46o  BOYCOTTS 

Davitt  V.  American  Bakers'  Union,  California,  1899,  56  Pac, 

775,  124  CaL,  99 421 

Dayton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Metal  Polishers,  Buffers,  Platers  &  Brass 

Workers'  Union  No.  5,  Ohio,  1901,  8  Ohio,  N.  P.,  574.  . 

403 
Delz  V.  Winfree,  Texas,  1891,  16  S.  W.,  iii,  80  Tex.,  400. 

(Also,  1894,  25  S.  W.,  50,  6  Tex.  Civ.  Ap.,  11.) .  .202, 

416 
De  Pear  v.  The  Cooks  Union,   Colorado,   ^7   Chic.    Legal 

News,   387 424 

Debs,  In  Re,  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.,  1895,  158  U.  S.,  564.     See  also 

U.  S.  V.  Debs 439 

Dickson  v.  Dickson,  Louisiana,  1881,  33  La.  Ann.  Rep.,  1261 . 

411 
Doremus  v.  Hennessy,  Illinois,  1898,  52  N.  E.,  924,  176  111., 

608    388-9 

Dressier  v.  Sellers,  New  Jersey,  1904,  27  N.  J.  L.  J.,  174.369 
Dueber  Watch  Case  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Howard  Watch  Co.,  U.  S. 

Circ.  Ct.  (N.  Y.),  1893,  55  Fed.  Rep.,  851,  854;    Circ. 

Ct.  App.,  1895,  66  Fed.,  637 436,  439 

Dunlap's  Cable  News  Co.  v.   Stone,   New  York,    1891,    15 

N.  Y.  Supp.,  2,  60  Hun.,  583 50,  373 

Emack  v.  Kane,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.     (Ohio),   1888,  34   Fed., 

46    432 

Employing   Printers'   Club   v.   Doctor   Blosser   Co.,   Georgia, 

1905,  50  S.  E.,  352,  122  Ga.,  509 50,  409 

Enterprise  Foundry  Co.  v.  Iron  Moulders'  Union  of  N.  A., 

Local  No.   186,  Michigan,  1907,   112  N.  W.,  685,   149 

Mich.,    31 395 

Erdman  v.  Mitchell,  Pennsylvania,  1903,  56  Atl.,  327..  188, 

385 
Ertz  V.  Produce  Exchange,  Minnesota,  1900,  81  N.  W.,  737, 

79  Minn.,  140 397 

Farmers'  Loan  and  T.,  Etc.,  Co.  v.  No.  Pacific  Ry.,  U.  S. 

Circ.  Ct.  (Wis.),  1894,  60  Fed.,  803 436 

Foster  v.  Retail  Clerks'  Ass'n,  New  York,   1902,  78  N.  Y. 

Supp.,  860,  39  Misc.,  48 190,  194,  196,  378 


APPENDIX  461 

Francis  v,  Flinn,  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.,  1886,  ii8  U.  S.,  385.  . .  .431 
Frank  v.  Herold,  New  Jersey,   1901,  52  Atl.,  152,  63  N.  J. 

Eq.,    443 368 

Funck  V.  Farmers'  Elevator  Co.  of  Gowrie,  Iowa,  1909,  121 

N.  W.,  53,  142  la.,  621 393-4 

Gatzow  V.  Buening,  Wisconsin,  1900,  81   N.  W.,   1003,   106 

Wis.,    1 404-5 

George  Jonas  Glass  Co.  v.  Glass  Bottle  Blowers,  New  Jersey, 

1907,  72  N.  J.  Eq.,  653,  66  Atl.,  953 370 

Gladish  V.   Bridgeford,   Missouri,    1905,    89   S.  W.,   77,    113 

Mo.  App.,   726 400 

Goldberg,   Bowen  &  Co.  v.   Stablemen's   Union,    Local   No. 

8760,   California,   1906,   86  Pac,   806,    149  Cal.,  429.. 

421-2 
Goldfield    Consolidated    Mines    Co.    v.    Goldfield     Miners' 

Union  No.  220,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  (Nev.),  1908,  159  Fed., 

500    445 

Gompers  et  al.  v.  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co.,  Ct.  of  App., 

D.   of   C,    1909,   37   Wash.    Law   Rep.,   706,   33   App. 

Cases,  D.  of  C,  515 451 

Gompers  et  al.  v.  Buck's  Stove  &  Range  Co.,  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct., 

191 1,  221  U.  S.,  418,  31  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.,  492 452 

Gompers  et  al..  In  re.  Sup.  Ct.,  D.  of  C,   19 12,  40  Wash. 

Law  Rep.,   417 453 

Gompers  et  al..  In  re,  Ct.  of  App.,  D.  of  C,  1 91 3,  41  Wash. 

Law  Rep.,  290 453 

Graham  v.  St.  Charles  Street  Railway,  Louisiana,    1895,   16 

So.,  806,  47  La.  Ann.,  214 411 

Grand  Jury,  In  re.  Charge  to  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.    (111.),    1894, 

62  Fed.,   828 437 

Grand  Jury,  In  re  U.   S.  Circ.  Ct.    (Cal.),   1894,  62   Fed., 

834    436 

Grand  Jury,  In  re  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.    (Cal.),    1894,   62   Fed., 

840 437 

Gray  v.  Building  Trades  Council,  Minnesota,  1903,  97  N.  W., 

663,  91    Minn.,    171 327,   397 


462  BOYCOTTS 

Green  v.  Davies,  New  York,   1903,  83  App.  Div.,  216,  82 
N.   Y.   Supp.,    54;   also    75    N.    E.,    536,    182   N.   Y., 

499    379 

Grenada  Lumber  Co.   v.  Mississippi,  U.   S.   Sup.  Ct.,   19 10, 

217  U.  S.,  433,  30  Sup.  Ct.,  535 50,  449 

Guethler  v.  Altman,  Indiana,  1901,  60  N.  E.,  355,  26  Ind. 

Apps.,   587 392 

Hamilton   Brown    Shoe    Co.   v.    Saxey,    Missouri,    1895,    32 

S.  W.,  1106,  131   Mo.,  212 » 399 

Hawarden  v.  Youghiogheny  L.  &  C.  Co.,  Wisconsin,   1901, 

87  N.  W.,  472,  III  Wis.,  545 405 

Herzog  v.  Fitzgerald,   New  York,    1902,   77   N.  Y.   Supp., 

366,  74  App.  Div.,  no 378 

Hey   V.   Wilson,   Illinois,    1908,    83    N.    E.,    928,   232    III, 

389  178,  390 

Heywood  v.  Tillson,  Maine,  1883,  75  Me.,  225 358 

Higgins,   In  re,  U.   S.   Circ.   Ct.    (Texas),    1886,   27    Fed., 

443    431 

Holder  v.  Cannon  Mfg.  Co.,  No.  Car.,   1904,  47  S.  E.,  481, 

1905,  50  S.  E.,  681,  138  N.  C,  308. 414 

Hopkins  v.  Oxley  Stave,  see  Oxley  Stave  Co.  v.  Hopkins. 
Hundley  v.  Louisville  R.  R.,  Kentucky,  1898,  48  S.  W.,  429, 

105  Ky.,   162 42,  45,  410 

Hunt  V.  Simonds,  Missouri,  1854,  ^9  Mo.,  583 399 

Huskie  v.  Griffin,  New  Hampshire,   1909,  74  Atl.,  595,   75 

N.  H.,  345 362-3 

Huttig  Sash  &  Door  Co.  v.  Fuelle,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  (Mo.), 

1906,  143  Fed.,  363 443 

Ideal  Mfg.   Co.   v.   Ludwig,   Michigan,    1907,    112   N.   W., 

723,  149  Mich.,  133 395 

International,  etc.,  Ry.  v.  Greenwood,  Texas,  1893,  21  S.  W. 

Rep.,  559,  2  Tex.  Circ.  App.,  76 416-7 

Iron   Molders  v.  Allis   Chalmers'   Co.,   U.   S.   Circ.   Ct.   of 

App.  (Wis.),  1908,  166  Fed.,  45 446,  448 

Irving  V.  Joint  District  Council,  U.  B.  of  Carpenters,  U.  S. 

Circ.  Ct.   (N.  Y.),  1910,  180  Fed.,  896 449 


APPENDIX  463 

Iverson  v.  Dilno  et  al.,   Montana,    191 1,   119   Pac,   719,  44 

Mont.,   270. 
Jackson  v.  Stanfield,  Indiana,  1894,  3^  N.  E.,  345,  137  Ind., 

592    50,  187,  196,  392 

Jacobs  V.  Cohen,  New  York,  1905,  76  N.  E.,  5,  183  N.  Y., 

207    381 

Jensen  v.  Waiters'  Union,  Washington,  1905,  81  Pac,   1069, 

39  Wash.,  531 429-30 

Jersey  City  Printing  Co.  v.   Cassidy,  New  Jersey,   1902,   53 

AtL,  230,  63  N.  J.  Eq.,  759. 368 

Johnston  Harvester  Co.  v.   Meinhardt,   New  York,   1881,  9 

Abb.   N.   C,   393,   60   Howard   P.,    168   aff.   24   Hun., 

489    371 

Jones  V.  Leslie,  Washington,   1910,  112  Pac,  81,  61  Wash., 

107    430 

Jones  V.  E.  Van  Winkle  Gin  &  Machine  Works,  Georgia, 

1908,  62  S.  E.,  236,  131  Ga.,  336 409 

Jordahl  v.  Hayda,   California,    1905,  82   Pac,    1079,    I   Cal. 

App.,  696 199,  421 

Joyce  V.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  Minnesota,  1907,  no  N. 

W.,  975,   100  Minn.,  225 45,  190,  398 

Karges  Furniture  Co.  v.  Amalgamated  Woodworkers'  Local 

Union  No.    131,  et  al.,  Indiana,    1905,   75   N.  E.,  877, 

165  Ind.,  421 178,  202,  393 

Kellogg  V.  Sowerby,  New  York,    1904,  93  App.  Div.,    124, 

87  N.  Y.  Supp.,  412;    also,   1907,   83  N.  E.,  47,   190 

N.  Y.,  370 380,  382 

Kemp  V.  Div.   No.  241,  Ry.  Employees,    Illinois,   19 10,    153 

111.  App.,   344 391 

Kolley  et  al.  v.  Robinson,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  App.  (Mo.),  191 1, 

187  Fed.,  415 449-50 

Lawlor  et  ah,  v.   Loewe  et  ah,   U.   S.   Circ   Ct.   of  App., 

1911,  187  Fed.,  522 455 

Lennon,  ex  parte,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  App.,  1894,  64  Fed.,  320, 

1897,  166  U.  S.,  548 437 

Lewis  V,  Huie-Hodge  Lumber  Co.,  Louisiana,   1908,  46  So., 

686,  121  La.,  658 412 


464  BOYCOTTS 

Lindsay  &  Co.  v.  Montana  Federation  of  Labor,  et  al.,  Mon- 
tana, 1908,  96  Pac,  127,  37  Mont.,  264.  .201,  209,  229, 

237,  424-6 
Locker   v.   American   Tobacco    Co.,    New   York,    1907,    121 

App.  Div.,  443 381-2 

Loewe  v,  Lawlor,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  1906,  148  Fed.,  924,  208 

U.  S.,  274. 
Loewe  v.  Lawlor,  U.  S.  Sup.  Ct.,  1908,  28  Sup.  Ct.  Rep., 

301    t 454 

Loewe  et  al.  v,  California  Federation  of  Labor  et  al.,  1905, 

U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  (Cal.),  139  Fed.,  71 443 

Lohse  Patent  Door  Co.  v.  Fuelle,  Missouri,  1908,  114  S.  W., 

997,  215  Mo.,  421 184,  400 

London   Guarantee,   etc.,   Co.   v.    Horn,    Illinois,    1902,    loi 

111.  App.,  355 ;  also  69  N.  E.,  526,  206  111.,  493 . .  187,  388 
Longshore  Printing  Co.  v.  Howell,  Oregon,    1894,   38   Pac, 

547,  26  Ore.,  527 52,  178,  427-8 

Louis  Bossert  &  Sons  v.  U.  Br.  Carpenters  &  Joiners,  New 

York,  1912,  137  N.  Y.  Supp.,  321,  77  Misc.,  592. .  .383 
Lucke  V.  Clothing  Cutters',  etc..  Assembly,  Maryland,   1893, 

26  Atl.,  505,  77  Md.,  396 187,  366 

Macauley  v.  Tierney,   Rhode   Island,    1895,    33   Atl.,    i,    19 

R.  I-,  255 50,  178,  202,  363 

McCord  V.  Thompson   Starrett   Co.,   New   York,    19 10,   92 

N.  E.,  1090,  198  N.  Y.,  587,  affirming  113  N.  Y.  Supp., 

385,  129  App.  Div.,  130 382-3 

McCormick,  In  re  New  York,   1909,   117  N.  Y.  Supp.,   70, 

132  App.  Div.,  921 382 

McDonald  v.  111.  Cent.  Ry.  Co.,  Illinois,   1900,  58  N.  E., 

463,  187  111.,  529 46,  389 

March  v.  Bricklayers'  &  Plasterers'  Union,  Connecticut,  1906, 

63  Atl.,  291,  79  Conn.,  7 357 

Martell  v.  White,  Massachusetts,   1904,  69  N.  E.,  1085,  185 

Mass.,  255 193,  3601 

Martin  v.  McFall,  New  Jersey,  1903,  55  Atl.,  465,  65  N.  J. 

Eq->  91 ,.- 369 


APPENDIX  465 

Marx  V.  Haas  Jeans  Clothing  Co.,  Missouri,  1902,  67  S.  W., 

391,  168  Mo.,  133 228,  399 

Master    Builders'    Ass'n    v.    Domascio,    Colorado,    1901,    63 

Pac,  782,   16  Colo.  App.,  25 424 

Master  Horseshoers'  Prot.  Ass'n  v.  Quinlivan,  N.  Y.,   1903, 

83  App.  Div.,  459,  82  N.  Y.  Supp.,  288 379 

Matthews  v.  Shankland,  New  York,  1898,  56  N.  Y.  Supp., 

123,  25  Misc.,  604 375-6 

Mattison  v.  Lakeshore  &  Michigan  S.  Ry.  Co.,  Ohio,   1895, 

3  Ohio,  Dec,  526 42,  45,  402-3 

May   V.  Wood,    Massachusetts,    1898,   51    N.   E.,    191,    172 

Mass.,  II 360 

Mayer   v.   Stonecutters'   Ass'n,   New  Jersey,    1890,    20  Atl., 

492,  47  N.  J.  Eq.,  519 368 

Mears  Slayton   Lumber  Co.  v.  District  Council  of  Chicago, 

Illinois,  1910,  156  111.  App.,  327 391 

Meier  v.  Speer,  Arkansas,   1910,   132  S.  W.,  988,  96  Ark., 

618    408 

Mills  V.  U.  S.  Print.  Co.,  New  York,  1904,  99  App.  Div., 

605,  91  N.  Y.  Supp.,  185 203,  237,  380-1 

Mogul  S.  S.  Co.  V.  Macgregor,  England,  1891,  23  Q.  B.  O., 

598,  66  L.  T.,  N.  S.,  I,  61  L.  J.  Q.  B.,  295.  •  .242-243 
Montgomery,  Ward  &  Co.  v.  So.  Dakota  Retail  Merchants, 

etc.,  Ass'n,   U.   S.   Circ.   Ct.    (So.    Dakota),    1907,    150 

Fed.,   413    443-4 

Moores  &  Co.  v.  Bricklayers'  Union,  Ohio,  1890,  23  Weekly 

L.  B.,  48,  10  Ohio  Dec,  645 * 402 

Murdock  v.  Walker,  Pennsylvania,    1893,  25  Atl.,  492,   152 

Pa.  St.,  595 384 

My  Maryland  Lodge  No.  186,  Intern.  Ass'n  of  Machinists  et 

al.   V.   Adt,    Maryland,    1905,    59   Atl.    Rep.,    721,    100 

Md.,  238 366-7 

National  Fireproofing  Co.  v.   Mason  Builders'  Ass'n,   U.   S. 

Circ.  Ct.  of  App.    (N.  Y.),    169   Fed.,  259;    also   145 

Fed.,  260. 
National   Protective  Ass'n   v.   Cummings,   New   York,    1902, 

63  N.  E.,  369,  170  N.  Y.,  315 178,  202,  237,  378-9 


466  BOYCOTTS 

New  York  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  Co.  v.  Schaffer,  Ohio,  1902,  62 
N.  E.,  1036,  65  Ohio  St.,  414 46,  404 

N.  Y.  L.  E.  &  W.  R.  Co.  V.  Wenger,  Ohio,  1887,  17  Weekly 
Law  BuL,  306,  9  Ohio  Dec,  815 401 

O'Brien  v.  People,  Illinois,    1905,  75   N.  E.,   108,  216   111., 

354    389 

Old  Dominion  Steamship  Co.  v.  McKenna,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct. 
(N.  Y.),  1887,  30  Fed.,  48,  18  Abbott,  N.  C,  262.. 

431-2 
Olive  V.  Van  Patten,  Texas,  1894;  255  S.  JV.,  428,  7  Tex. 

Civ.  App.,   631 417 

Oneil   V.   Behanna,    Pennsylvania,    1897,    37    Atl.,    843,    182 

Pa.  St.,  236 385 

Oxley  Stave  Co.  v.  Hopkins,   U.   S.  Circ.   Ct.  App.,    1897, 

83  Fed.,  912 206,  215,  216,  232,  440-1 

Park   (John  D.)   &  Sons  Co.  v.  National  Wholesale  Drug 

Ass'n,  1903,  175  N.  Y.,  1 50,  232,  375 

Parker  v.  Bricklayers'  Union   No.   i,   Ohio,    1889,    10  Ohio 

Dec.  (Reprint),  458,  21  Wkly.  Law  B.,  223 401-2 

J.  P.  Parkinson  Co.  v.  Building  Trades  Council,  California, 

1908,  98  Pac,  1027,  154  California,  581..  193,  237,  422-3 
Patch   Mfg.  Co.  V.  Protection  Lodge,   etc.,  Vermont,   1905, 

60  Atl.,  74,  77  Vt,  294 364-5 

Payne  v.  Railway  Co.,  Tennessee,   1884,  49  Am.  Rep.,  666, 

13  Lea,  507 197,  231,  415 

People  V.  Chandler,   New  York,    1900,    54  App.   Div.,    iii, 

66  N.  Y.  Supp.,  391 376 

People  V.  Kostka,   New  York,    1886,   47   N.   Y.   Crim.   R., 

429    372 

People  V.  McFarlin,  New  York,  1904,  89  N.  Y.  Supp.,  527, 

43  Misc.,  591 380 

People  V.  Radt,  New  York,  1900,  15  N.  Y.  Crim.  R.,  174, 

71  N.  Y.  Supp.,  846 376-7 

People   V,    Wilzig,   New   York,    1886,    4   N.   Y.   Crim.   R., 

403    371-2 

Piano   &  Organ   Workers'   International   Union  v.   Piano  & 

Organ  Supp.  Co.,  Illinois,  1906,  124  111.  App.,  353.. 390 


APPENDIX  467 

Pickett  V.  Walsh,  Massachusetts,   1906,  78  N.  E.,   753,   192 

Mass.,  572 361 

Pierce   v.    Stablemen's   Union,    Local    No.    8760,    California, 

1909,  103  Pac,  324,  156  Cal.,  70;    also  149  Cal.,  429, 
86  Pac,  806 237,  423 

Plant  V.  Woods,  Massachusetts,  1900,  57  N.  E.,  loii,  176 
Mass.,  492 191,  195,  197,  213,  360 

Purington  v.  Hinchliff,  Illinois,  1905,  76  N.  E.,  47,  219 
111.,    159 186,  389-90 

Purvis  V,  United  Brotherhood  of  Carp,  and  Joiners,  Penn- 
sylvania, 1906,  63  Atl.,  585,  214  Pa.  St.,  348.  .188,  195, 

385-6 

Quinn  v.  Leathern,  England,  1901,  85  L.  T.,  289..  183,  244 

Raycroft  v.  Tainter,   Vermont,    1896,   35   Atl.,   53,   68  Vt., 

219    365 

Reynolds  v.  Davis,  Massachusetts,  1908,  84  N.  E.,  457,  198 

Mass.,  294   361 

Reynolds  v.  Everett,   New  York,   1894,   39  N.   E.,  72,   144 

N.  Y.,    189 374 

Reynolds    v.    Plumbers'    Material    Prot.    Ass'n,    New   York, 

1900,  63  N.  Y.  Supp.,  303,  30  N.  Y.  Misc.,  709 377 

Rhodes  v.   Granby  Cotton  Mills,    South   Carolina,    19 10,   68 

S.  E.,   824 414-5 

Richter   Bros.   v.   Journeymen   Tailors'    Union,    Ohio,    1890, 

24  Wkly.  L.  Bui.,   189 402 

Riggs  V.  Waiters'  Alliance  Local,  Ohio,  1898,  5  Ohio  N.  P., 

386    403 

Robison  v.  Texas  Pine  Land  Ass'n,  Texas,  1897,  40  S.  W., 

843    417 

Rocky  Mt.   Bell  Telephone   Co.   v.   Montana   Federation    of 

Labor,  Montana,  1907,  156  Fed.,  809 445 

Rogers  v.  Evarts,  New  York,  1891,  17  N.  Y.  Supp.,  264.  .373 
Rourke  v.  Elk  Drug  Co.,  New  York,  1902,  77  N.  Y.  Supp. 

373,   75  App.  Div.,   145 379 

Rowan  v.  Butler,  Indiana,  1908,  85  N.  E.,  714 393 

Ruddy  V.  United  Ass'n  Journeymen  Plumbers,  New  Jersey, 

1910,  75  Atl.,  742,  79  N.  J.  L.,  467 370 


468  BOYCOTTS 

Ryan  v.  Burger  &  Hower  Brewing  Co.,   New  York,    1891, 

59  Hun.,  625,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.,  660 373 

St.  Louis  S.  W.  Ry.  Co.  of  Texas  v.  Hixon,  Texas,   191 1, 

137  S.  W.,  343,  104  Tex.,  267 418 

Schneider  v.  Local  Union  No.  60,   Louisiana,    1906,   40   S., 

700,   116  La.,  270 412 

Schlang  V.  Ladies'  Waist  Makers'  Union  Local  25,  L  L.  G. 

W.  U.,  New  York,    1910,   124  N.  Y.   Supp.,   289,   67 

Misc.,  221 382 

Schwarcz  v.  Intern.  Ladies'  Garment  Workers'  Union,  New 

York,  1910,  124  N.  Y.  Supp.,  968,  68  Misc.,  528.  .382 
Scottish  Cooperative  Wholesale  Society  v.  Glasgow  Fleshers' 

Trade   Defense    Ass'n   and   others,    Scotland,    1898,    35 

Scot.  L.^Rep.,  645 243 

Seattle  Brewing  &  Malting  Co.  v.  Hansen,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct. 

(Cal.),  1905,  144  Fed.,  ion 442 

Sherry  v.  Perkins,  Massachusetts,   1888,  17  N.  E.,  307,   147 

Mass.,  218   359 

Shine  et  ai.  v.  Fox  Brothers'  Mfg.  Co.,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  of 

App.  (Mo.),  1907,  156  Fed.,  357 445-5 

Sinsheimer  v.  United  Garment  Workers,  New  York,     1894, 

77  Hun.,  215,  28  N.  Y.  Supp.,  321 373-4 

Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Doyle,  Kentucky,  1904,  82  S.  W.,  271, 

118  Ky.,  662 411 

State  V.  Duncan  ef  al.,  Vermont,  1906,  63  Atl.,  225,  78  Vt., 

364 , 365 

State  V.  Dyer,  Vermont,  1894,  32  Atl.,  814,  67  Vt.,  790.  .364 
State  V.  Glidden,  Connecticut,   1887,  8  Atl.,  890,  55  Conn., 

46 184,  187,  188,  207,  356-7 

State  ex  rel.  Durner  v.  Huegin,  Wisconsin,  1901,  85  N.  W., 

1046,  no  Wis.,  189 405 

State  V.  E.  C.  Jacobs,  Ohio,  1899,  7  Ohio  N.  P.  Rep.,  261  ..403 
State   V.    Stewart,    Vermont,    1887,    9    Atl.,    559,    59    Vt., 

273   187,   197,  364 

State  V.  Stockford,  Connecticut,  1904,  58  Atl.,  769,  77  Conn., 

227 357 


APPENDIX  469 

State  V.  Van  Pelt,  North  Carolina,  1904,  49  S.  E.,  177,   136 

N.  C,  633 55,  216,  413 

M.  Steinert  &  Sons  Co.  v.  Tagen,   Massachusetts,    191 1,  93 

N.  E.,  584,  207  Mass.,  394 361-2 

Sumwalt  Ice  Co.  v.  Knickerbocker  Ice  Co.  of  Baltimore  City, 

Maryland,  191 1,  80  Atl.,  48,  114  Md.,  403 367 

Sun  Printing  &  Pub.  Co.  v.  Delaney,  New  York,   1900,  48 

App.  Div.,  623,  62  N.  Y.  Supp.  750 376 

Tallman  v.  Gaillard,  New  York,  1899,  57  N.  Y.  Supp.  419, 

27  Misc.,  114 376 

Tanenbaum  v.  N.  Y.  Fire  Insurance  Exchange,  New  York, 

1900,  68  N.  Y.  Supp.,  342,  33' Misc.,  134 377 

Temperton  v.  Russell,  England,   1893,  62  L.  J.  Q.  B.,  412, 

I  Q.  B.,  715 243 

Thomas  v.   C.   N.   O.   &  T.   P.   Ry.   Co.,    U.   S.   Circ.   Ct. 

(Ohio),  1894,  62  Fed.,  803 199,  438 

Toledo,  A.   A.,   etc.,   v.   Pennsylvania  Co.,   U.   S.   Circ.   Ct. 

(Ohio),  1893,  54  Fed.,  730,  746 434-5 

Trapp  V.  Du  Bois,  New  York,  1902,  76  App.  Div.,  314,  78 

N.  Y.  Supp.,  505 378 

Tuttle   V.    Buck,    Minnesota,    1909,    119   N.   W.,    946,    107 

Minn.,    145 398 

Ulery  v.   Chicago   Live   Stock   Exchange,    Illinois,    1894,    54 

111.  App.,  233 178,  388 

Union  Labor  Hospital  v.  Vance  Redwood  Lumber  Co.,  Ore- 
gon, 191 1,  112  Pac,  886,  158  Cal.,  551 428 

U.  S.  V.  Agler,   Indiana,    1894,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.    (Ind.),   62 

Fed.,   824 436 

U.   S.  V.  Cassidy,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.   (Cal.),    1895,  67   Fed., 

698 439-40 

U.  S.  V.  Debs,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.   (111.),   1894,  63  Fed.,  436, 

64  Fed.,  724,  65  Fed.,  210;  see  also  Debs,  In  re.  .  .438-9 
U.   S.    V.   Elliott,   U.   S.   Circ.   Ct.    (Mo.),    1894,   62   Fed., 

801    437-8 

U.  S.  V.   Haggerty,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,   1902    (W.  Va.),   116 

Fed.,   510 441 


470  BOYCOTTS 

U.  S.  V.  Kane,  U.  S.  Cfrc.  Ct.  D.,  Colorado,  1885,  23  Fed., 

748  431 

U.  S.  V.  Patterson,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.,  Mass.,   1893,  55   Fed., 

605  433 

U.  S.  V.  Raish  et  al,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  (111.),  1908,  163  Fed., 

911    445-6 

U.  S.  V.  Workingmen's  Amalgamated  Council  of  N.  A.,  U. 
S.  Circ.  Ct.  (La.),  1893,  54  Fed.,  994 434 

U.  S.  Heater  Co.  v.  Iron  Moulders'  Union  of  N.  A.,  Mich- 
igan, 1902,  88  N.  W.,  889,  129  Michft,  354 395 

Van  der  Piatt  v.  Undertakers'  Ass'n  of  Passaic  Co.,  New 
Jersey,  1905,  62  Atl.,  453,  70  N.  J.  Eq.,  116 369 

Van  Horn  v.  Van  Horn,  New  Jersey,  1894,  28  Atl.,  669, 
56  N.  J.  L.,  318;    also  21  Atl.,  1069,  53  N.  J.  Law, 

514 368 

Vegelahn  v.  Guntner,  Massachusetts,  1890,  44  N.  E.,   1077, 

167  Mass.,  92 193,  204,  215,  218,  231,  359-60 

Wabash  Ry.  Co.,  In  re.,  U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.    (Mo.),   1885,  24 

Fed.,  217    431 

Wabash  Ry.  Co.  v.   Young,  Indiana,  1904,  69  N.  E.,  1003, 

162  Ind.,  102 46,  392-3,  431 

Walker  v,  Cronin,  Massachusetts,  1871,  107  Mass.,  555.  .359 
Walsh  V.  Ass'n  of  Master  Plumbers  of  St.  Louis,  Missouri, 

1902,  71  S.  W.,  455,  97  Mo.  App.,  280 399-400 

Walsh  V.  Wright,  New  York,  1890,  40  App.  Div.,  513.. 372-3 
Waterhouse  v.   Hugh   M.   Comer,   U.    S.   Circ.   Ct.    (Ga.), 

1893,  55  Fed.,  149 435 

Webb  V.  Drake,  Louisiana,  1899,  26  So.,  791,  52  La.  Ann., 

290    411-12 

Wesley  v.  Native  Lumber  Co.,  Mississippi,  1910,  53  S.,  346, 

97   Miss.,  814 413 

Weston  V.  Barnicoat,   Massachusetts,   1900,   56  N.   E.,   619, 

175  Mass.,  454 360 

West    Virginia    Transportation    Co.    v.    Standard    Oil    Co., 

West  Virginia,  1901,  40  S.  E.,  591,  50  W.  Va.,  611.  . 

214,  419 


APPENDIX 


471 


Wick  China  Co,  v.  Brown,  Pennsylvania,   1894,  30  Atl.,  261, 

164  Pa.  St.,  449 385 

Willcutt    &    Sons    Co.    v.    Bricklayers'    Benevol.    &    Protect. 

Union  No.  3,  Massachusetts,   1908,  85  N.  E.,  897,  200 

Mass.,   no 361 

Willis  V.  Muscogee  Mfg.  Co.,  Georgia,  1904,  48  S.  E.,  177, 

120  Ga.,  59 45,  409 

Wills  V.  Central  Ice  Co.,  Texas,   1905,  88  S.  W.,  265,  39 

Tex.  Civ.  App.,  483 418 

Willner  v.   Silverman,    Maryland,    1909,    71    Atl.,   962,    109 

Md.,   341 367 

Workingmen's   Amalgamated    Council   of    N.    O.    v.    U.    S., 

U.  S.  Circ.  Ct.  of  App.  (La.),  1893,  57  Fed.,  85. . .  .434 
Worthington    v.   Waring,    Massachusetts,    1892,    32    N.    E., 

744,   157   Mass.,  421 359 

Wyeman  v.  Deady,  Connecticut,  1906,  65  Atl.,  129,  79  Conn., 

414 357 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

PARTIAL     LIST     OF     PUBLICATIONS     TO    WHICH     REFERENCE     IS 
MADE    IN    THIS    ESSAY 

Adams,  T.  S.,  and  H.  L.  Sumner.     Labor  Problems.     New 

York,   1 910. 
Allen,  Charles  C.     Injunction  and  Organized  Labor.    Trans- 
actions of  the  American  Bar  Association,  v.  17,  pp.  299- 

331.     1894. 
American  Digest,   including  Decennial  Edition  and  American 

Digest    annotated.      A    complete    digest   of    all    reported 

American   cases   from   the   earliest   times   to    the   present. 

See  especially  under  sections   referring  to   "Conspiracy/* 

"Injunction''  "Monopoly''     St.   Paul. 
American  and  English  Encyclopaedia  of  Law.     See  especially 

Labor  Combinations  and  Injunctions.     Northport,  N.  Y., 

1901. 
American    Federation    of    Labor.      Convention    Proceedings, 

1881   to  1912. 
American  Federation   of  Labor.     Statement  and  Evidence  in 

Support    of    Petition    against    U.    S.    Steel    Corporation. 

Washington,   19 10. 
Anti-Boycott   Association.      Literature    of,    including  Million 

Against  One.     1904,  etc..  New  York. 
Bolen,  Geo.  L.     Getting  a  Living.     New  York,  1903. 
Bryan,  James  W.     The  Development  of  the  English  Law  of 

Conspiracy.     Baltimore,    1909. 
Carlton,  Frank  F.     The  History  and  Problems  of  Organized 

Labor.     New  York,    19 il. 
Clark,  John    Bates.     Essentials  of  Economic    Theory.     New 

York,  1909. 

473 


474  BOYCOTTS 

Commons,  John  R.  Trade  Unionism  and  Labor  Problems. 
New  York,   1905. 

Cooke,  Fred.  H.  The  Law  of  Combination,  Monopolies 
and  Labor  Unions.     Chicago,   1909. 

Crosby,  Oscar  T.     Strikes.     New  York,   19 10. 

Debs,  Eugene  V.  Debs:  His  Life,  Writings  and  Speeches. 
Girard,  Kansas,  1908. 

Documentary  History  of  American  Industrial  Society.  Espe- 
cially V.  3  and  V.  6.     Cleveland,  19 10,  191 1. 

Eddy,  Arthur  J.     The  Law  of  Combinations.     Chicago,  1901. 

Edwards,  Alba  M.  The  Labor  Legislation  of  Connecticut. 
American  Economic  Association,  Third  Series,  v.  8. 
New  York,  1907. 

Ely,  Richard  T.  The  Labor  Movement  in  America.  New 
York,  1905. 

Encyclopaedia  of  Pleading  and  Practice,  especially  under 
Strikes  and  Boycotts.     Northport,  N.  Y.,   1901. 

Friedman,  Morris.  The  Pinkerton  Labor  Spy.  New  York, 
1907. 

Gompers,  Samuel.  Labor  in  Europe  and  America.  New 
York,   1 9 10. 

Groat,  George  G.  Attitude  of  American  Courts  in  Labor 
Cases.     New  York,   191 1. 

Huebner,  Grover  G.     Boycotting.     Madison,    1906. 

Krauthoff,  L.  C.  Malice  as  an  Ingredient  in  Boycott  Ac- 
tions.    American  Bar  Association  Reports,    1898. 

Lawyers'  Reports  Annotated.  A  digest.  Rochester,  N.  Y., 
1907. 

Martin,  Wm.  A.  A  Treatise  on  the  Law  of  Labor  Unions. 
Washington,    19 10. 

Maschke,  Prof.  Boycott,  Sperre  und  Aussperrung.  Eine 
Sozialrechtliche  Studie.     Jena,   191 1. 

Merritt,  Walter  G.  The  Neglected  Side  of  Trade  Union- 
ism.    The  Boycott.     Danbury,  Conn.,  1902. 

Mitchell,  John.     Organized  Labor.     Philadelphia,    1903. 

Moody,  John.  Manual  of  Corporations.  New  York.  An- 
nual. 


APPENDIX  475 

National  Consumers'  League.     Literature  of,  including  recent 

annual  reports.     New  York. 
Portenar,  A.  J.     Problems  of  Organized  Labor.     New  York, 

1912. 
Pouget,   Emil.     Sabotage,  with   introduction  by  Arturo  Gio- 

vannitti.     Chicago,   19 12. 
Ralston,  Jackson  H.     Use  and  Abuse  of  Injunctions  in  Trade 

Disputes.     Philadelphia,    19 10. 
Reports  of  Court  Decisions,   State,   Sectional  and  Federal. 
Ross,  E.  A.     Changing  America.     New  York,   19 12. 
St.  John,  Vincent.      The  I.   W.   W .,   Its  History,  Structure 

and  Methods.     Newcastle,   Pa.     Date  not  given. 
Seager,   Henry  R.     Introduction   to  Economics.     New  York, 

1907. 
Seligman,   E.  R.  A.     Principles  of  Economics.     New  York, 

1908. 
Spedden,    Ernest   R.      The    Trade    Union   Label.      Baltimore, 

1911. 
Stimson,  Frederic  Jesup.     Handbook  to  the  Labor  Law  of  the 

U.  S.     New  York,  1896. 
Stockton,   Frank  T.      The   Closed  Shop  in  American    Trade 

Unions.     Baltimore,   1911. 
StreighthofiF,    Frank.     Distribution   of  Incomes   in   the    U.   S. 

New  York,  19 12. 
Union   Label  Trades   Department.     A.    F.   of   L.,   including 

Convention  Proceedings.     Washington. 
Walling,   Wm.   English.      Socialism   as   It   Is,     New  York, 

1912. 
Wayland,   J.   A.    (publisher).     Spies   in   the    Trade    Unions. 

Girard,  Kan.,   1904. 
Weyl,  Walter.     The  New  Democracy.    New  York,  1912. 

PUBLIC   DOCUMENTS 

Great  Britain.  The  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on 
Trade  Disputes  and  Trade  Combinations,  London, 
1906. 


476  BOYCOTTS 

lUinois.    Jmnual  Report  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1 886. 
Massachusetts.       Recent    Legislation     Affecting     Workmen. 

Part  of  Annual  Rqrart  for  1907  of  Bureau  of  Statistics 

of  Labor,  1907. 
Massachusetts.     Labor  Injunctions  in  Massachusetts,     Labor 

Bulletin  No.  70,   1909. 
Massachusetts.     Litigation  Arising  from  Labor  Disputes  and 

Related   Causes   in   the   MassachusetU   Courts.      Labor 

Bulletin  No.  78,  1910. 
New  York.     Annual  Reports  Bureau  of  Statislics  of  Labor, 

1885  to  1892,  inclusive,  and   191 1. 
Wisconsin.     Annual  Report   of  Bureau   of  Labor  Statistics, 

1885-6. 

UNITED  STATES  GOVERNMENT 

Report  of  Industrial  Commission,  especially  v.  19,  part  I, 
di.  in.    Also  vols.  5,  8,  12,   14,  15,  17,  19,  1902. 

Report  on  the  Chicago  Strike  of  lune-Julg,  i8g4,  by  the 
United  States   Strike  Commission,   1895. 

Labor  Disturbances  in  Colorado.  Report  of  Commissioner 
of  Labor,  1905. 

Report  on  Strike  at  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Works.  Sen.  Doc 
521,  6ist  Cong.,  2nd  Ses.,  1910. 

Report  on  Condition  of  Women  and  Child  Wage  Earners 
in  the  U.  S.    Senate  Document  645,  v.  i,  19 10. 

Maintenance  of  a  Lobby  to  Influence  Legislation.  Hearings 
before  a  sub-committee  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judi- 
ciary, U.  S.  Senate,  63d  Cong.,  ist  Session,  pursuant  to 
S.  Res.,  92,  1913. 

Conditions  in  the  Ptdnt  Creek  District  of  West  Virginia. 
Hearings  before  a  sub-committee  of  the  Committee  of 
Education  and  Labor,  U.  S.  Senate,  63d  Cong.,  ist 
Ses.,  1913. 

Anti-Injunction  Bill.  Complete  hearings  before  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Judiciary  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on 
H.  R.,  89.    57th  Cong.,  1st  Scss.,  1904, 


APPENDIX  477 

Limiting  Federal  Injunctions.  Hearings  before  a  sub-com- 
mittee of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  U.  S.  Senate, 
62d  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  on  H.  R.  23635,  1913. 

The  Boycott  of  American  Manufactured  Goods  by  the  Peo- 
ple of  China.  Hearings  before  the  Immigration  Com- 
mittee,   1906. 

Labor  Laws  in  the  United  States.  Twenty-second  Annual 
Report  Bureau  of  Labor,  1907;  also  Bulletin  of  Labor, 
1907;    also  Bulletin  of  Labor,  No.  97,  Nov.,  191 1. 

Decisions  of  Courts  Affecting  Labor.  In  Bulletins  of  Labor 
edited  by  Lindley  D.  Clark.     Bi-monthly  until  19 12. 

Injunction  Data  Filed  by  Samuel  Gompers.  Washington, 
1908. 

Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States.     Annual. 

Also  see  Select  List  of  References  on  Boycotts  and  In- 
junctions in  Labor  Disputes.  Compiled  under  the  Di- 
rection of  H.  H.  B.  Meyer,  Chief  Bibliographer, 
Library  of  Congress.     Washington,   191 1. 


MAGi^^INE    ARTICLES 

American  Academy  of  Political  and  Sodal  Science.  "Admin- 
istration of  Justice  in  the  United  States."  Annals  of 
Am.  Aca.  of  Pol.  and  Soc.  Sc,  v.  xxxvi.  No.  I,  Sept., 
1910. 

Ames,  J.  B.  "How  Far  an  Act  May  Be  a  Tort  Because  of 
the  Wrongful  Motive  of  the  Act."  Harvard  Law  Re- 
vieWy  V.   18,   pp.  411-422. 

Antonelli,  E.  "Boycottage  Turc."  La  Grande  Revue,  v. 
56,  p.  338,  1909- 

Boyle,  James.  "Organized  Labor  and  Court  Decisions." 
Forum,  V.   42,  pp.  535-51,   1909. 

Bradstreet's.    "Boycotts."    V.  12,  pp.  394-397,  Dec.  19,  1885. 

Bryan,  James  Wallace.  "Injunctions  Against  Strikes." 
American  Law  Review,  v.  40,  pp.  42-57  and  I96-2II, 
Jan.  to  Apr.,   1906. 


478  BOYCOTTS 

Burnett,  J.  The  Boycott  as  an  Element  in  Trades  Dis- 
putes.   Economic  Journal,  v.  i,  pp.  164-173,  Mar.,  1891. 

Caldwell,  Henry  Clay.  "Trial  by  Judge  and  Jury."  Amer- 
ican Federationist.     V.    17,  PP.  385-399-     May,   1910. 

Cheyney,  E.  P.  "Decisions  of  the  Courts  in  Conspiracy  and 
Boycott  Cases."  Political  Science  Quarterly,  v.  4,  pp. 
261-278.     June,  1889. 

Darling,  Chas.  R.  "The  Law  of  Strikes  and  Boycotts." 
American  Law  Register,  v.  43,  p.   73.      1904. 

Darling,  Chas.  R.  "Recent  American  Decisions  and  English 
Legislation  Affecting  Labor  Unions."  Am.  Law  Rev., 
V.  42,  pp.  200-228.      Mar.,  Apr.,    1908. 

Freund,  Ernst.  "The  Legality  of  a  Boycott  in  Germany." 
Journal  of  Political  Economy,  v.  14,  pp.  573-574-  Nov., 
1906. 

Godkin,  E.  L.  "Genesis  of  Boycotts."  Nation,  v.  31,  pp. 
437-438.     1880. 

Gompers,  Samuel.  "The  Boycott  as  a  Legitimate  Weapon." 
Am.  Fed.,  v.  6,  pp.   192-195.     Oct.,    1899. 

Gompers,  Samuel.  "Is  the  Boycott  un-American?"  Ain. 
Fed.,  V.   14,  pp.   875-880.     Nov.,    1907. 

Haldane,  R.  B.  "The  Laborer  and  the  Law."  Contem- 
porary Review,  v.  83,  pp.  362-369.     Mar.,  1903. 

Huffcut,  E.  W.  "Interference  with  Contracts  and  Business 
in  New  York."    Harv.  Law  Rev.,  v.  18,  pp.  423-443. 

Irwin,  Will.  "The  American  Newspaper."  Collier  s  Mag- 
azine.    Jan.  21  to  July  29,  191 1. 

Jones,  W.  Bence.  "Boycotted."  Contemporary  Rev.,  v.  39, 
p.  856.     1881. 

Kennedy,  John  C.  "Socialistic  Tendencies  in  American 
Trade  Unions."  J.  of  Pol.  Ec,  v.  15,  pp.  470-488. 
1907. 

McWilliams,  Robt.  L.  "Evolution  of  the  Law  Relating  to 
Boycotts."  Am.  Law  Rev.,  v.  41,  pp.  336-342.  May- 
June,   1907. 

McQuinston,  F.  B.  "Strike  Breakers."  Independent,  v.  53, 
p.  2457.     Oct.  17,  1901. 


APPENDIX  479 

Marcosson,  Isaac  F.  "The  Fight  for  the  Open  Shop." 
World's   Work,  v.    ii,   pp.   6955-6965.      Dec,    1905. 

Pavlovitch,  Michel.  "Le  Boycott  Economique  et  la  greve 
generale  en  Perse."  Mouvement  Socialiste,  v.  28,  pp. 
16-24,  1910. 

Prothero,  R.  E.  "French  Boycott  and  Its  Cure."  19th 
Century,  v.   28,  pp.   778-785. 

Schaffner,  Margaret  Anna.  "Effect  of  the  Recent  Boycott 
Decisions."  The  Am.  Ac.  of  Pol.  and  Soc.  Sc,  No. 
599,   Philadelphia,   1910. 

Seager,  Henry  R.  "The  Legal  Status  of  Trade  Unions  in 
the  United  Kingdom,  with  Conclusions  Applicable  to 
the  United  States."  Pol.  Sc.  Qutly.,  v.  22,  pp.  611-629. 
Dec,   1907. 

Selover,  Geo.  H.  "Economics  of  Boycotts."  Social  Econom- 
ics, V.  4,  p.  257.     1894- 

Smith,  Jeremiah.  "Crucial  Issues  in  Labor  Litigation."  Harv. 
Law  Rev.,  v.  20,   pp.   253-279;    pp.   345-362;  pp.  429- 

455.     1907. 
Stephen,  J.  F.     "Suppression  of  Boycotting."     igth  Century, 

V.  20,  p.  765.     1886. 
Thompson,    Seymour    D.      "Injunction    Against   Boycotting." 

Am.  Law  Rev.,  v.  33,  pp.  885-888.     Nov.-Dec,   1899; 

V.  34,  pp.   161-185.     Apr.,    1900. 
Vinton,    A.    D.      "History    of    Boycotting."      Magazine    of 

Western  History,  v.  5,  pp.  211-224.      1886. 
White,  Henry.     "Labor  Unions  in   Presidential  Campaigns." 

North  American  Review,  v.   188,  pp.  372-382.     1908. 
Wigmore,  John  H.     "The  Boycott  and  Kindred  Practices  as 

Ground   of    Damages."      Am.   Law    Rev.,    vol.    21,    pp. 

509-532.     July-Aug.,   1887. 


PERIODICALS 


American  Federationist. 
American  Industries. 
American   Law  Register, 


48o  BOYCOTTS 

American  Law  Review, 

Annals  of  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science. 
Appeal  to  Reason. 
Contemporary  Review. 
Harvard  Law  Review. 
International  Socialist  Review, 
Journal  of  Political  Economy, 
Political  Science  Quarterly. 
The  Survey. 

Trade  Union  Journals.  f 

New  York   newspapers,    especially  New    York    TimeSj   Call, 
World  and  Globe. 


INDEX 


Adams,  T.  S.,  60,  64,  70,  275- 
276. 

Akron   Press  J  36. 

Allen,  Charles  C,  268. 

Altgeld,  Governor,  104. 

American  Federationist,  67,  iii, 
120,    141,   144,  145,  146,  171. 

American  Federation  of  Labor, 
accomplishments,  278 ;  begin- 
nings of,  70;  boycott  activi- 
ties, 65,  105,  Ch.  VII,  139  ff., 
163,  345»  347,  350;  label  of, 
62  ff. ;  obstacles  of,  265,  315, 
316;   political   action    in,   52, 

335  ff. 

American  Flint,  148,  294. 

American  Industries,  36,  38,  48, 
282,  293,  294. 

Ames,  Prof.  J.  B.,  220. 

Andrews,  Judge,  194,  195-6. 

Ann  Arbor  Strike,  98-100. 

Anthracite  Coal  Strike,  xvii, 
158-9. 

Anti-Boycott  Association,  134, 
149,  158,  272,  288. 

Anti-Coolie  Law  and  Order  As- 
sociation, 75. 

Anti-Injunction  bills,  255   ff. 

Archbold,  J.  D.,  326. 

Arthur,  Grand  Chief,  98,  99. 

Askwith,  G.  R.,  218,  246. 

Associated  Press,  313. 

Austria,  253. 

Bacon,  Bill  of  Congressman,  259. 
Bakeman,    Robert  A.,  317. 
Baker,  Judge,  436,  448. 
Bannon,  Harry  M.,  284. 
Barnum,  Gertrude,  296-7. 
Bartlett,   Congressman,  255,  258, 

260. 
Bechtold,  George,  140. 
Beck,  James,  149. 
Belgium,  253. 
Benney,  Wm.  M.,  281. 
Benson,  Allan  L.,  305. 
Big  business   and  boycotts,    119, 

162. 


481 


Bird,    J.    Philip,   283. 

Bishop,   Dr.,   on   malice,  221. 

Blacklist,  36,  39  ff.,  215,  243,  270, 
289.     See  also  Appendix. 

Blaine,   James  G.,  campaign,  51. 

Blair,  Senator,  172. 

Boston,  29,  31,  310. 

Bowen,  Lord,  220. 

Boycott,  Captain,  23  ff. 

Boy  cotter.    The,   51,    347. 

Bradstreet's,  71,   72-y,   161. 

Brampton,  Lord,  183. 

Brewer,  Judge,  106,  107,  439. 

Brooklyn,  31,  43,  277. 

Brooklyn  Eagle,  46,   54,   268. 

Brooks,  John  Graham,  342. 

Brownell,  Atherton,  282. 

Bucks'  Stove  and  Range  Co.,  xx, 

64,  71,  no,  134-150,  157,  163, 

178,   179.    185,  186,   188,  203, 

234,  235,  288,  297,  327,  331, 

.  333,  336,  345,  450  ff. 

Building    Trades,    boycotts    of, 

157. 
Bureau  of  Labor  Reports : 
Illinois,  49,  71,  77-79. 
Mass.,  246. 
New  York,   51,   57-58,  70,  71, 

Ch.  v.,  162,  268,  348. 
Wisconsin,  71,  78,  80. 
Burnett,  John,  250. 
Butterick    patterns,    boycott    of, 
156,  157,  161,  272. 


Caldwell,    Judge,   206,   214,   216, 

232,  430,  440. 
Canada,  boycott  in,  157. 
Canadian  Bank  of  Commerce,  2)^. 
Carnegie  Steel  Company,  44. 
Carpenter,  Judge,   182,  184. 
Catholic  Societies,  Am.  Fed.  of, 

32. 
Causes  of  boycotts,  93-94,  164. 
Charities  and  Commons,  277. 
Cheyney,  E.  P.,  205. 
Chicago,  32,  22,,  100,  loi,  Z23- 
Chinese  boycotts,  $3,  72^  7$. 


482 


INDEX 


Citizens'  Industrial  Alliance,  135, 

300,  311. 
Civic  Federation,  340. 
Civil  Action,  239.     See  also  Ap- 
pendix. 
Clabaugh,     Chief    Justice,     144, 

149. 
Clarendon,  Lord,  206. 
Clark,  Lindley  D.,   177. 
Clark,   Prof.  John  B.,  269. 
Clayton,  Congressman,  255,  258, 

260. 
Cleveland,    32,    137;    strike    in, 

296-7. 
Cleveland,  Grover,  100,  104. 
Closed  shop,  38,  152. 
Coercion,   174-6,   194  .ff-»  230  ff. 

See  also  Appendix. 
Cohen,  Arthur,  221,  247. 
Cole,  Congressman,  284. 
Collegiate  Alumnae,  Ass'n  of,  35. 
Colorado,  Labor  Struggle  in,  41, 

42,    292-3,    300-2,    305,    320, 

322-3. 
Coman,  29. 
Combination,    law    of,     181    ff., 

201  ff. 
Compound  boycott,  64-5. 
Congestion,  Committee  on.  New 

York,  277. 
Congress,    attempts    to    legalize 

boycotts  in,  255  ff. 
Conspiracy,    see    Chapters    XII, 

XIII,    XV.      See    also    Ap- 
pendix. 
Constabulary,  320-2. 
Consumers'  boycott,  31    ff. 
Consumers'  League,  33  ff. 
Contempt  proceedings,  99,  105  ff., 

145   ff.,   239,  255.     See  also 

Appendix. 
Continental  Congress,  29. 
Cooley,  221,  227,  228. 
Cooperatives,  trade  union,  233. 
Corporations'      Auxiliary      Co., 

289, ff. 
Corruption  in  trade  unions,  273. 
Coudry,  Congressman,  284. 
Courts,  control  of,  325-8;   atti- 
tude on  boycotting,   234  ff. 

See  also  Appendix. 
Cox,  Judge,  154. 
Crane,  A.  K.,  292-3. 
Criminal    procedure    in    boycott 

cases,  107  ff.,  239.    See  also 

Appendix. 


Cuba,  boycott  in,  157. 
Cushing,  Sec,  286. 

Danbury  Hatters'  boycott,  xx, 
64,  71,  113,  155  ff-,  234,  235, 
286,  288,  331,  333,  336,  34S 
454  ff. 

Darling,  Chas.  R.,  217,  218,  222, 
226,  229. 

Darlington,  J.  J.,  149. 

Davenport,  Daniel,  149. 

Daughters  of  Liberty,  29. 

Dawson,  Governor,  299. 

Debs,  Eugen^  V.,  100  ff.,  234. 

Definitions  of  boycotts,  27,  60, 
63  ff. 

Democratic  party,  335,  336,  337. 

Denver  Republican,  323. 

Deputy  Marshals,  U.  S.,  103. 

Detective  Agencies,  Baldwin- 
Felts,  297  ff ;  Burns,  Wm.  J., 
295;  Humphrey,  319;  Joy, 
294;  Pinkerton,  293,  303. 

Detectives,   297   ff. 

Detroit  News,  36. 

Dicey,  Prof.  A.  V.,  205. 

Dickinson,  Sec,  32. 

Distinguishing  mark,  advantage 
of,  124,  125,  131,  163-4. 

Drummond,   Judge,   437. 

Dunedin,  Lord,  247. 

Duration  of  boycotts,  92-3. 

Eagle,  H.  H.,  44. 

Earle,    Chief   Justice,    186. 

Eddy,  188. 

Edwards,  Alba  M.,  47. 

Ellison,  Judge,  205. 

Ely,   R.   T.,  40,  41. 

Emery,  James  A.,  282,  284. 

Employers'  Associations, 
Building  Trades  Employers', 
158;  Chicago  Employers', 
288-289 ;  Denver  Advertis- 
ers', 311;  Employers'  Ass'n 
Bureau,  288;  Employers'  In- 
formation Service,  294;  Gar- 
ment Mfrs.',  Cleveland, 
320;  Laundry  Owners',  289; 
Mfrs.'  Bureau  of  Hartford 
Co.,  47;  Mfrs.'  Information 
Bureau,  Cleveland,  137 ; 
Manufacturing  Woodwork- 
ers', 158;  Master  Carpen- 
ters',   158;    National    Ass'n 


INDEX 


483 


Mfrs.,  see  under  heading; 
National  Council  for  Indus- 
trial Defense,  282  ff. ;  Na- 
tional Erectors',  327;  Na- 
tional Founders',  ^7,  138, 
139;  National  Metal  Trades', 
47,  287;  Stove  Founders' 
National  Defense,  135,  138, 
140;   see   also   281    flf. 

Employers'  boycott,  35  flf. 

Employers'   Liability  Law,   336. 

Employment   bureaus,   47. 

Erdman  Law,  46,  336,  446  ff. 

Erne,  Lord,  24. 

Ettor-Giovannitti  trial,  54. 

Evening  Wisconsin,  80. 

Farmer,  Judge,  177,  327. 

Farmers'  boycott,  54  ff. 

Federal  Commission  on  Indus- 
trial Relations,  xix,   xx. 

Federal  Courts,  on  boycotting, 
234  ff.,  430  ff. 

Felton,  Samuel  W.,   106. 

Fenner,  Justice,   230. 

Fitch,  John  A.,  319-320,  327. 

Fitzgerald,   Mayor  John,   31. 

Floaten,   A.   H,,   300. 

France,  27,  28,  253. 

Freedom  of  press  and  speech, 
198  ff.,  227  ff. 

Freund,  E.,  251. 

Friedman,  Morris,  293. 

Fuller,  Chief  Justice,  153,  186. 

Gardner,  Frederic  W.,  147,  148. 

Garner,  Congressman,  284. 

Garoutte,  Judge,  228. 

General  Managers'  Association, 
103,   105,   107. 

Germany,   54,    157,   251-2,   254. 

Gibson,  Justice,  183. 

Giovannitti,  340-1. 

Glasscock,  Governor,  298-9. 

Goldfield  Sun,  130. 

Gompers,  Samuel,  on  the  black- 
list, 43;  attempted  bribery 
of,  287;  on  boycotts,  114, 
329,  332,  344,  346,  350;  in 
Buck's  Stove  Case,  134,  137, 
138,  142,  145,  147,  149,  198; 
in  Lincoln  Farm  Ass'n,  Z7 '> 
on  political  action,  336;  on 
press,  314;  on  Sherman  An- 
ti-Trust Law,  171-3,  261-2; 
on  threats,  232 ;  see  also  Ap- 


pendix, Buck's  Stove  Case, 
450  ff. 

Gould,  Judge,  143,  146,  178,  185, 
187,  198,  450. 

Gray,  Mrs.,  83,  348. 

Great  Britain,  boycotts  in,  28-9, 
250;  boycott  of  British 
goods,  52,  53;  law  of  con- 
spiracy in,  241-251,  254,  262; 
Laborites,  248,  347;  Royal 
Commission  and  Taff  Vale 
decision,  see  post. 

Great  Southern  Lumber  Co., 
320. 

Greece,   ostracism  in,  27. 

Green,  Vice  Chancellor,  182,  195. 

Groat,-  A.   B.,   136. 

Groat,  George  G.,  210-11. 

Grose,  Judge,  207. 

Grosscup,  Judge,  437,  448. 

Haldane,  R.  B.,  246. 
Hall,  Covington,  44,  303. 
Hallett,  Allen  P.,  207. 
Hammill,    Congressman,    259. 
Hammond,  Judge,    191. 
Hardie,  J.  Keir,  347. 
Harlan,  Judge,  181,  447. 
Haskins,  Kittridge,  284,  285. 
Hatters'   boycott,    69-70,    151    ff. 
Hatters'    Journal,    151. 
Hayes,  Max,  340. 
Haywood,  Wm.  D.,   131. 
Hearst's  Magazine,  49,  326. 
Henry,    Congressman,   260. 
Hindoo  boycott,  53. 
Hoar,  Senator,   173,  255. 
Holland,  254. 
Holloway,  Judge,  201,  209,  229, 

425. 
Holmes,   Justice,    193,    198,   204 

213,  215,  216,  218,  231,  360, 

442,  447. 
Homestead,    strike   in,   303,   304. 
Hopkins,    Mayor   John    P.,    104. 
House  Wives'   League   of  New 

York,  32. 
Huebner,  253. 
Huffcut,  E.  W.,   191. 
Hughes,  Congressman,  259,  284. 

//  Lavatore  Italiano,  315. 

Illinois,   boycotts    in,    77-80. 

Industrial  Commission  Reports, 
evidence  before,  41,  232,  270, 
278,  280,  303,  304-5,  346,  350. 


484 


INDEX 


Industrial      Workers      of      the 
World,    71-2,    129-131,    340, 

342-3. 
Industries,    boycotts    in,    87    ff., 

117  flf.,  125  flf. 
Ingalls,  Senator,  172. 
Injunction,    when    used,   239. 
Injury  to  business  and  property, 

attitude  of  law  on,   184   ff., 

209   ff. 
Interest,  doctrine  of,  213  ff. 
International  boycott,    53   ff. 
International    Socialist    Review, 

303,  317,  320. 
Interstate    Commerce    Law,    gg, 

100,  170  ff.,  234. 
Intimidation,  see  Coercion. 
Ireland,  23-7. 
Irwin,  Will,  307,  311. 
Italy,  254. 

Jenkins,  John  J.,  284,  285. 
Jenks,  Justice,  203,  380. 
Johnson,  Rev.  C,  318. 
Jones,  Richard  L.,  302,  313. 
Judiciary  Committees,   137,   173, 

258,  260,  284,  285,  314. 
Justifiable  cause,  191  ff. 

Kelley,  Mrs.  Florence,  33. 
Kelley,  Hugh,  321. 
Kennedy,  John  C,  281,  339. 
King  Edward  VII.,  247. 
Kirby,   John,  Jr.,  38. 
Knights   of  Labor,   boycotts   of, 

75  ff.;  conflicts  with  A.  F. 

of  L.,  83,  no,  121,  165,  286; 

label,  61,  62;  politics,  335; 

success,  57,  70. 
Kosciusko  guards,  80. 
Krauthoff,  L.  C,  223,  224. 
Kreyling,  David,  140. 

Label  Shop,  34. 

Labor  boycotts,  definition  of,  65 ; 

see    also   legal    decisions    in 

Appendix. 
Labor,  Committee  on,   258,  285. 
Labor,  condition  of,  275  ff. 
Lacombe,  Judge,  154. 
Lamar,  Judge,  453. 
Land  League,  24. 
Lawrence,  Mass.,  strike  at,  130, 

311-12,  314,   320,  324. 
Lee,    Herman,  272. 
Legislation  on  boycotts,  174  ff., 

241  ff.,  253  ff.,  255  ff. 


Lemon,  99. 

Lewis,     Sir     William     Thomas, 

247. 
Lincoln,  37,  38. 

Lincoln    Farm    Association,    37. 
Little    Falls,    N.    Y.,    strike    in, 

317,  319- 
Littlefield,  Congressman  Charles 

E.,  284,  336. 
Lobby,  maintenance  of,  282  ff. 
Loewe    and     Company,    D.    E., 

isi  ff.,  336. 

London  Times,  The,  26,  221. 
Lovejoy,  Owen  R.,  316-317,  324. 
Lubin,   Morril,  296,  297. 
Lucas,  Edward,  140. 
Lunn,  Geo.  R.,  317. 
Lushington,    Sir    Godfrey,    219, 

245,  247. 
Lynch,  Michael,  321. 

McDermott,  James  T.,  284. 

McKees  Rock,  strike  in,  303. 

McMaster,  29. 

MacNaughten,  Lord,  221. 

McPherson,  Judge,   148. 

McQueston,  F.  B.,  304, 

McWilliams,  Robt.  L.,  202. 

Mails,  U.  S.,  interference  with, 
104,  106,  107,  234;  see  also 
Appendix,  Federal  Cases. 

Malice,  doctrine  of,  189  ff.,  213 
ff. 

Marcosson,  I.  F.,  288. 

Markly,  Sir  William,  221. 

Martine,  Senator  James  E.,  299, 
306. 

Maurer,    James    H.,   321. 

Meat,  boycott  of,  31,  32,  33. 

Memorial   National  Park,  37. 

Metropolitan  Magazine,  306. 

Michaelson,  300,  306,   325. 

Militia,    322-5. 

Miller,  Attorney  General  N.  C, 
323. 

Miller,  Owen,  113. 

Milwaukee  Republican,  80. 

Minimum  Wage  Board,  34. 

Mitchell,  John,  on  blacklist,  40- 
42;  on  boycott,  158,  331-2, 
344-6,  349;  in  Buck's  Stove 
Case,  134,  145,  see  also  Ap- 
pendix, under  Buck's 
Stove;  in  Colorado  strug- 
gle, 302;  on   label,   169. 

Mitchell,  Judge,  211-12,  223. 


INDEX 


48s 


Moffitt,  John,   151,    152. 

Monopoly,  efifect  on  boycott,  163. 

Moody's  Manual  of  Corpora- 
tions,  119,    122. 

Mooney,  James,   302. 

Moorhead,  Helen  H.,  34. 

Morrison,  Frank,  125,  134,  142, 
145,   147,   149- 

Morrison,   Judge,   326. 

Morrow,    Judge,   439-40- 

Morse,  Charles  W.,  44. 

Morton,  Quinn,  299. 

Mulhall,  Colonel  Martin  M., 
284  ff. 

Murray,  Hon.  Andrew  Graham, 
247. 

National  Association  of  Manu- 
facturers, activities  against 
organized  labor,  281  ff.,  297; 
boycott  conducted  by,  36-8, 
52;    in   Buck's    Stove    case, 

135  ff. 
National  Bank  of  No.  Am.,  44. 
National   Council  for   Industrial 

Defense,  282  ff. 
Negative  boycott,  60,  169  ff. 
New    England    mills,    wages    in, 

276. 
New  York,  31  ff.,  44,  51,  76,  82 

ff.,  118,  132,  277 
New  York  Call,  44,  45,  293,  299, 

306,   313,   317. 
New  York  Globe,  296. 
New  York  Herald,  31- 
New  York  Sun,  no. 
New  York  Times,  52,  54,  277. 
New  York  Tribune,  51,  52,  109, 

no. 
New  York  World,  284,  285,  286, 

287. 
Noyes,  Judge,  154. 

O'Malley,  Father  John,  23,  24. 
Orchard,    Harry,    293. 

Panama  Fair,  54. 

Pankhurst,  Mrs.,  52. 

Parker,   Alton   B.,    16,   202,  231. 

Parnell,  26. 

Parry,  David  M.,  140,  281. 

Paterson,  N.  J.,  strike,  131,  297, 

317,  320. 
Patterson,  Senator,  310-11. 
Pavlovitch,  M.,  53. 
Pearre,  George  E.,  255,  284. 


Persian  boycott,  53. 

Phelan,  106. 

Philadelphia,  boycott  in,  31 ; 
Cordwainer's  ^  case,  208; 
strikebreaking  in,  285-6. 

Phillips,  Judge,  437-8. 

Picardy,  boycotting  in,  28. 

Picketing,  212. 

Pittsburgh  Leader,  44. 

Piatt,  Judge  James  P.,  153,  154. 

Plumb,  Senator,  172. 

Police,  318-320. 

Political  action,  334-40. 

Political  boycott,  51   ff. 

Pollock,  Sir  Frederick,  220. 

Portenar,  156,  271,  :i23' 

Positive  boycott,  63  ff. 

Post,   C.   W.,  36,    148. 

Pouget,  Emil,  340. 

Powderly,  Grand  Master,  77,  83. 

Press,  control  of,  307-15;  free- 
dom of,  198  ff.,  227  ff. 

Primary  boycott,  64,  177  ff. 

Printers'   boycott,  70, 

Printers'  Bulletin,  80. 

Prohibitionists,  335. 

Publicity,  as  element  in  boy- 
cotts, 163. 

Publicity  bureaus,    308. 

Pullman   strike,    100-7,   327. 

Railroads,  boycotts,  98  ff.     See 

also  Appendix, 
Reasons  for  boycott,  56-60. 
Redpath,  James,   23   ff. 
Reid,    Whitelaw,    109. 
Republican  party,  51,  335, 
Revolution,  American,  28  ff. 
Ricker,  A.  W.,  291. 
Robb,  Judge,  183,   186,  199,  451. 
Rocky  Mountain  News,  311. 
Roddenbery,    Congressman,    259. 
Roelof  and  Company,  152. 
Rogers,  Judge,  441. 
Rome,   Church  of,  27. 
Ross,  E.  A.,  312. 
Royal     Commission,    report    of, 

218,  219,  220,  221,  222,  247. 
Russia,  54. 

Sabotage,  340-1. 
San  Diego,  Calif.,  317. 
San  Francisco   Bulletin,   26. 
Schwab,  Chas.  M.,  313. 
Schwedtman  F.,  285,  286. 
Scots,  boycott  of,  53-4. 


486 


INDEX 


Scott;  Alex.,  314. 

Scott,  Judge,   177,  327. 

Scripps-McRae  papers,  36. 

Seager,  Henry  R.,  250. 

Seattle   Times,   52. 

Secondary  boycott,  definition,  64. 

Secret  practice  of  boycotts,  331. 

Seligman,  E.  R.  A.,  60. 

Shepard,  Chief  Justice,  147,  149, 
179,  203,  230,  451-2. 

Sherman  Anti-Trust  Law, 
amendments  proposed,  255- 
257;  blacklists  and,  235;  in 
Danbury  Hatters'  Case,  113, 

151  ff„  234.  336,  454  ff-; 

Gompers  on,  259-62;  labor 
and,  259-62;  origin  of,  170 
ff. ;  railroads  and,  100,  105-7, 
234.  See  also  Appendix 
under  Federal  Cases. 

Sherman,  Senator,  172. 

Sherwood,  Judge,  227,  228. 

Siebold,  Louis,  287. 

Smith,  J.  H.,  291. 

Smith,  Jeremiah,  189,  192,  205, 
216. 

Social    advantage,    doctrine    of, 

193- 
Socialists,  36,  52,  251,  300,  335- 

40. 
So.  Bethlehem,  Pa.,  321. 
Southern  mills,  wages  in,  276. 
Spargo,  John,  342. 
Spedden,  E.  R.,  61,  63. 
Speech,  freedom  of,  198  flf.,  227 

ff-,   307-315. 

Speer,  Judge,  435-6. 

Spokane,  Wash.,  317. 

Springfield  Republican,  310. 

"Spy"  system,  138,  289  ff. 

St.  John,  Vincent,  342. 

St.   Louis,   139  ff.,   286. 

Stamp    Act,    29. 

Standard  Oil  Co.,  32. 

Stanley,  Congressman,  44,  255, 
260. 

Star  Chamber,  206. 

States,  boycotting  in,  75  ff. 
legal  decisions  given  by 
state  and  federal  courts: 
Alabama,  407,  448;  Arizona, 
420;  Arkansas,  407-8;  Cali- 
fornia, 420-3,  436,  437,  439, 
442,  443;  Colorado,  423-4; 
Connecticut,      356-7,      455 ; 


Delaware,  365-6,  440;  Flor- 
ida, 407 ;  Georgia,  408,  435 ; 
Idaho,  424,  433;  Illinois, 
389-91,  432,  437,  438;  Indi- 
ana, 391-3;  Iowa,  393-4; 
Kansas,  394;  Kentucky,  409- 
11;  Louisiana,  411,  434; 
Maine,  357-8 ;  Maryland, 
366-7 ;  Massachusetts,  358-62, 
433;  Michigan,  394-5;  Min- 
nesota, 395-8;  Mississippi, 
412,  449;  Missouri,  398-400. 
437,  440,  441,  444,  449;  Mon- 
tana, 424-6,  445;  Nebraska, 
401 ;  Nevada,  426,  441,  445 ; 
New  Hampshire,  362-3 ; 
New  Mexico,  426;  New 
Jersey,  367-70;  New  York, 
370-83,  431,  436,  449;  North 
Carolina,  413-4;  North  Da- 
kota, 426-7;  Ohio,  401-4, 
432,  434,  438;  Oklahoma, 
414;  Oregon,  427-8;  Penn- 
sylvania, 383-6;  Rhode  Isl- 
and, 363;  South  Carolina, 
414-5;  South  Dakota,  428, 
443,  445;  Tennessee,  415; 
Texas,  415-8;  Utah,  428-9; 
Vermont,  363-5 ;  Virginia, 
418-9;  West  Virginia,  419, 
441 ;  Wisconsin,  404-6,  436, 
442,  446,  447;  Wyoming, 
430. 

State  statutes  on  boycotts,  174 
ff.  and  in  Appendix,  under 
each  state;  on  blacklists, 
48  ff. 

Steel  Corporation,  U.  S.,  38,  39, 
278,   318,   441. 

Stephen,  Sir  James  Fitzjames, 
221. 

Stewart,  Senator,  172. 

Stimson,  F.  J.,  173. 

Stockton,  F.  T.,  66,  349. 

Stone,  Melville  E.,  313. 

Stone,  Wm.  A.,  326. 

Streightoff,   Frank,   275. 

Strike-breaking,  285-6,  304-6. 

Strikes,  75,  90-2,  212,  262. 

Success  of  boycotts,  85-6,  117  ff., 
Ch.   X. 

Suffren,  Martha  Wentworth,  52. 

Sumner,  Helen,  60,  64,  70. 

Sundry  Civil  bill,  255. 

Survey,  298-9,  317,  320,  324,  327. 

Swadeshi  movement,  53. 


INDEX 


487 


Taff  Vale  decision,  247,  Z37- 

Taft,  Wm.  H.,  on  combination, 
182;  on  free  speech,  199; 
in  railroad  cases,  99,  106, 
107,  434-5,  438;  on  Sundry 
Civil  bill,  259;  in  So.  Beth- 
lehem  investigation,   313. 

Teller,  Senator,  172. 

Tertiary  boycott,  67. 

Theiss  Case,  268. 

Threats,  230  ff.  See  also  Coer- 
cion, 

"Tobacco    Trust,"    121, 

Tracy,   Thomas,   ZZ^- 

Trade  Associations,  49,  50. 

Trade  boycott,  49  ff.  See  also 
legal  decisions  in  Appendix. 

Trades,  87  ff.,  126. 

Trades    Disputes   Act,  249,   250, 

347. 

Trades  Disputes  and  Combina- 
tions,   Commission  on,    247. 

Tridon,  A.,  342. 

Triest,  153. 

Troops,  U.  S.,  103,  104. 


Unfair  list,  see  "We  Don't 
Patronize"  List. 

Unions,  American  Railway,  42, 
45,  71,  100  ff. ;  Bakers',  62, 
339;  Boot  and  Shoe  Work- 
ers', 63;  Brewers',  62,  339; 
Bridge  and  Structural  Iron 
Workers',  342 ;  Carpenters', 
157,  158;  Cigar  Makers',  61, 
62,  63,  83,  121 ;  Colorado,  F. 
of  L.,  41 ;  Electrotype  Mold- 
ers,  143 ;  Foundry  Workers, 
140,  141 ;  Garment  Work- 
ers', 43,  62,  296;  Hat  and 
Cap  Makers',  63,  339;  Hat- 
ters', 6z,  151  ff. ;  Iron  Work- 
ers', 140;  I.  W.  W.,  see 
supra ;  Locomotive  Engi- 
neers', 98,  99,  100;  Machin- 
ists', 43,  339;  Metal  Polish- 
ers', 135,  140,  141,  142;  Mill 
and  Smeltermen's,  293 ; 
Miners',  Western  Federa- 
tion of,  7r,  131,  292-3,  300, 
339;  Mine  Workers,  United, 
145,  158,  302,  339;  Molders', 
13s,  137,  138,  148;  Railway 
Telegraphers',  293 ;  Timber 
Workers',  303;   Typographi- 


cal, 51,  52,  70,  156  ff.,  161; 
see  also  43,  62-3,  122,  125-9; 
Appendix ;  general  head- 
ings 

Union  and   Transcript,  70. 

Union   label,  37,  38,  60-3,  332-3. 

United  Mine  Workers'  Journal, 
145- 

U.  S.  Engineering  Company,  39. 

U.  S.  Reduction  and  Refining 
Company,    292. 

Utah  Copper  Company,  303. 


Valentine,  Joseph,   140. 

Van  Cleave,  James  W.,  on 
blacklists  and  boycotts,  47; 
in  Buck's  Stove  Case,  135 
ff. ;  on  legislation,  282,  283. 

Van  Orsdel,  Judge,  147,  179,  451. 

Vickery,  Judge,  295-6. 

Victor  Record,  302. 


Wages,   275-7. 

Walker,  Edwin,  103. 

Walling,  Wm.  English,  339. 

War  of  1812,  29. 

Ward j  on,   W.   M.,  302. 

Washington,  George,  38. 

Watson,  Congressman  James  E., 
284. 

"We  Don't  Patronize"  List,  64, 
71,  no  ff.,  115  ff.,  140,  144, 
23s,  348,  350-  See  also  Ap- 
pendix. 

Webb,  Sidney,  218,  247. 

West,  Harold  E.,  297-8. 

Westmoreland  County,  Pa., 
strike  in,  302,  313. 

West,  Thomas   H.,  334. 

West  Virginia  Investigating 
Committee,  299,  325. 

West  Virginia  Miners'  strike, 
297-300,  317. 

Weyl,   Walter,   309-10. 

White,  J.   Harvey,  310. 

Whitehead,  Jack,   304. 

White  list,  2,3  ff.,  60. 

Whiton,  Lucius   E.,  291. 

Wigmore,  John  H.,  222. 

Williams,  John,  319. 

Williams,  Justice,  169. 

Wilson,  Sec.  William  B.,  255-8, 
^  284,  340,  345. 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  260. 


488 


INDEX 


Wisconsin,  'j'j,  80. 

Wise,  Henry  A.,  45. 

Women  and  Child  Labor,  report 

of,  276. 
Women,  boycotting  by,   161. 
Women's     International     Union 

Label  Leagues,  63. 
Women's  Municipal  League,  35. 


Women's  Trade  Union  League, 

35- 
Wood,  Judge,  438-9. 
Woodrow,  40. 
Woods,  Judge,   105. 
Wright,   14s,  149,  185,  450. 

Yurpee,  Senator,  172. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(415)  642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


NOV  1  2  1991 


£i. 


D£CQ5193^ 


pt,BnJQ98 


^^K^  I  kJ  I 


CDSMfl^a^^M 


W-  'my^:-:^':,.  > -'M>v..-^-^^-^'  •  A  / 


(L 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY         1 


V 


